VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

Sathiyaraj v. The State of Tamilnadu

ALLOWED
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
14 August 2026
Bench
S.Karthikeyanauthor
Case no.
CRL A(MD) 906/2026

Follow Madras High CourtFollow S.Karthikeyan

Judgment

ORDER The present appeal has been preferred against the order declining bail to the petitioner by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur, made in Crl.M.P.No.430 of 2026 dated 15.07.2026.

¶2The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellant and the deceased were partners in a lath business. The deceased had borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the appellant, which he had not repaid. As per the case of the prosecution, the appellant and two other persons went to the house of the deceased on 15.05.2026 and intimidated him by saying that if the money was not paid within a week, they would murder him. Therefore, on

17.05.2026, at around 3.00 p.m., the deceased consumed poison and died on the same day. Based on the complaint given by the wife of the deceased, the present complaint was originally registered under Section 194 of the BNSS and thereafter altered to Section 108, 351(2) of BNS and Section 4 of TNPCEI Act r/w. Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST

(PoA) Act.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, to avoid the payment of the loan, the present false case has been foisted against the petitioner. Further, the investigation is completed and the petitioner has been in incarceration since 19.05.2026 and he prays for grant of bail.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioner and other co-accused knocked at the door of the deceased on 15.05.2026 at around 11.00 p.m. in the night. When the defacto complainant and her husband opened the door, the appellant asked the defacto complainant's husband to repay the loan and scolded him in filthy language by referring to his caste name and threatened him that if he did not repay the money within a week, they would kill him, due to which, on 17.05.2026, the defacto complainant's husband consumed poison and died on the same day. Further, the investigation is completed and the Final Report is also filed before the Trial Court. Therefore, he strongly objected to the grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶5This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions put forth by either side.

¶6It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant herein had lent some money to the deceased and demanded the said money within a week and intimidated him. Therefore, the deceased consumed poison and committed suicide. The demand for money, which was already advanced as a loan, does not amount to either instigation or intentional aid for the purpose of abetment of suicide. There is no positive material produced before the Court to show that the appellant intended the death of the deceased and instigated him. Anyhow, now the investigation is over and the Final Report has also been filed before the Trial Court. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the order passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur, in Crl.M.P.No.430 of 2026 dated 15.07.2026 and grant bail to the petitioner.

¶7Accordingly, these Criminal Appeal is allowed and the orders passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur in Crl.M.P.No.430 of 2026 dated 15.07.2026, is hereby set aside. The appellants are ordered to be released on bail on the following conditions:- i. The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur. ii. The sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the trial Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;

iii) The appellant shall report before the Inspector of Police, Vattathikkottai Police Station, Thanjavur District, daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders, except the days, on which their appearance is required before the trial Court.

vi) On violation of any of the above conditions by the appellant, the respondent police shall move an application for cancellation of the bail. 14-08-2026 Indu To

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Orathanadu Sub Division Thanjavur District.

2.The Inspector of Police Vattathikkottai Police Station Thanjavur District.

3.The Government Advocate (Crl.Side), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Case details

Parties and counsel

Crl.A(MD) NO. 906 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14-08-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.KARTHIKEYAN Crl.A(MD) No.906 of 2026 Sathiyaraj Appellant Vs 1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Orathanadu Sub Division Thanjavur District. 2.The Inspector of Police Vattathikkottai Police Station Thanjavur District. Crime No.111/2026. 3. Karthika Respondents For Appellant(s): Mr.K.Arunraj For Respondent(s): Mr.G.Ganeshkumar Government Advocate for R1 and R2 No appearance for R3 Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 14(A)(1) of the SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015, to call for the records and set aside the order passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Thanjavur, dated 15.07.2026 made in Crl.M.P.No.430 of 2026 and enlarge the appellant on bail by allowing this appeal.

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.