CRL OP No. 17484 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL OP No. 17484 of 2026 1.Velmurugan No.2/51A, Main Road,Kevarodai, Vettangudi,Sirkazhi Taluk,Mayiladuthurai District. 2.Bhavani W/o. Godhandam, Kevarodai, Vettangudi, Sirkazhi Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District. 3.Balaiya S/o. Pasupathi, No.1-78, Anna Street, Kevarodai, Vettangudi, Sirkazhi Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District. ..Petitioners Vs The State Represented by Inspector of Police Pudupattinam Police Station, Mayiladuthurai District. Crime NO. 510 of 2025. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioners on bail in the event of Their arrest by the respondent police concerned in Crime No. 510 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Vinoth For Respondent(s): Mr.N. Palanivel, Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side) __________ Page1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 17484 of 2026 ORDER The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 194 of BNS,S @ 108 of BNS 2023 in Crime No. 510 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, Ramya, wife of the deceased Ashok, lodged a complaint before the respondent police on 24.12.2025. It is alleged that there was a property dispute between the deceased Ashok and his mother, the 2nd petitioner. On 06.12.2025, the deceased allegedly went to the house of the 2nd petitioner and demanded a share in the family property. Since the 2nd petitioner refused his demand, the deceased consumed poison. He was initially admitted to the hospital for treatment and, despite medical care, succumbed to the poisoning on 24.12.2025. Hence, the case. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 2nd petitioner is the mother of the deceased Ashok, the 1st petitioner is her brother, and the 3rd petitioner is her brother-in-law. It was further submitted that the deceased was already married to the defacto complainant and was living separately. The deceased had already been allotted his share of the family property, which he had subsequently leased out. It was contended that the deceased had suffered __________ Page2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 17484 of 2026 heavy losses in his business and, being unable to cope with the financial difficulties, took the extreme step of consuming poison. The learned counsel further submitted that the deceased was initially admitted to the Government Hospital by the defacto complainant and was later shifted to JIPMER Hospital, Puducherry, by the petitioners and other family members, where he ultimately died on 24.12.2025. It was contended that the complaint has been falsely lodged against the petitioners only with a view to harass them. He further submitted that they are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners that, on account of the property dispute, they had refused to allot a share in the family property to the deceased, which allegedly drove him to consume poison. He further submitted that the investigation is in progress and, considering the nature of the allegations, the petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record. __________ Page3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 17484 of 2026 6. From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), it is seen that the occurrence arose out of a property dispute within the family. The petitioners have no previous criminal antecedents. Whether the acts alleged against the petitioners amount to abetment of suicide is a matter to be established during the course of investigation. Considering the relationship between the parties, the nature of the allegations, and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the petitioners the relief of anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions. 7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Sirkazhi, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only), with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions: (a) If the petitioners fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled; (b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left __________ Page4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 17484 of 2026 thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity; (c) The first petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation; The petitioners 2 and 3 shall report before the respondent Police as and when required for interrogation; (d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; (e) If the petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 17-07-2026 JRS __________ Page5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 17484 of 2026 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. JRS To 1. The Judicial Magistrate Court, Sirkazhi. 2. The Inspector of Police Pudupattinam Police Station, Mayiladuthurai District. Crime NO. 510 of 2025. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras High Court, Madras. CRL OP No. 17484 of 2026 17-07-2026 __________ Page6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis