Muthupandi Vs The State of Tamiladu Rep. by

Muthupandi vs The State of Tamiladu Rep. by

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Jun 29, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1661158

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1661158
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar
Decided On: Jun 29, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP(MD)/12579/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Muthupandi

Respondent

The State of Tamiladu Rep. by

Excerpt

.....appearing for the petitioner would submit that thepetitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. he would further submit that he is in custody from 22.05.2026 and ready to abide any condition imposed by this court. hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.4. the learned counsel appearing for the state reiterated the prosecutioncase and reported that a2 in this case is absconding, investigation is still pending, though two co-accused were released on bail, they are women,. the petitioner has no previous case. hence he strongly opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.5. this court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.6. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence,though co-accused have been released on bail, they are women, a2 in this case is absconding, though the petitioner has not previous case, the petitioner was arrested only recently, investigation is also not yet completed, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.7.accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. (k r s j) 29.06.2026 tm to 1.the judicial magistrate no.ii, usilampatti. 2.the inspector of police, madurai district. (crime no.41 of 2026) 3.the superintendent, central prison, madurai. 4.the additional public prosecutor, madurai bench of madras high court, madurai.k. rajasekar, j.tmorderin crl op(md) no. 12579 of 2026

Full Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD). No. 12579 of 2026 Muthupandi ...Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Madurai District. (Crime No.41 of 2026) ...Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ajithkumar Advocate For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side) For Intervenor : Mr.Malar PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 41 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.05.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 109, 351(3) of BNS @ into 296(b), 115(2), 109, 103(1), 351(3) of BNS, in Crime No.41 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to property dispute, the

petitioner, who is ranked as A1, joined hands with other accused attacked the deceased with deadly weapons and caused injuries on the vital parts and caused death. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that he is in custody from 22.05.2026 and ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the State reiterated the prosecution

case and reported that A2 in this case is absconding, investigation is still pending, though two co-accused were released on bail, they are women,. The petitioner has no previous case. Hence he strongly opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence,

though co-accused have been released on bail, they are women, A2 in this case is absconding, though the petitioner has not previous case, the petitioner was arrested only recently, investigation is also not yet completed, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. (K R S J) 29.06.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Usilampatti. 2.The Inspector of Police, Madurai District. (Crime No.41 of 2026) 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 12579 of 2026

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties Muthupandi vs The State of Tamiladu Rep. by Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar