Crl.O.P.No.9444 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Crl.O.P.No.9444 of 2026 R.Sivakumar, S/o.Radhakrishnan ... Petitioner Vs. The State rep. By its The Inspector of Police, Chengam Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District. Crime No.01 of 2026. … Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in crime No.01/2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Jayachandran For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 05.01.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections 127(2), 326(g), 103(1) of BNS and Section 4 of TNPPDL Act in Crime No.01 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9444 of 2026 2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Amirtham and Sakthivel were in illegitimate relationship. The petitioner is the husband of deceased Amirtham. Due to her relationship, the petitioner set fire to Sakthivel’s residence using petrol. Both victims died of burn injuries sustained in the incident. Hence, the present case has been registered. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 05.01.2026 and he is ready to co-operate with the investigation and abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent Police strongly opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that it is a case of double murder. He further submitted that the petitioner set fire to Sakthivel’s residence using petrol. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9444 of 2026 5. Considering the submission made by the learned Government Advocate and also considering the serious allegation made against the petitioner, this Court is of the view that, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it would shock the conscience of the society, hence, this Court is not inclined to consider this bail application. 6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 16.04.2026 mp To 1. The Inspector of Police, Chengam Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9444 of 2026 C.KUMARAPPAN, J. mp Crl.OP.No.9444 of 2026 16.04.2026 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis