Jayan vs State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police
2026 Latest Caselaw 1606 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1606 Mad
Judgement Date : 7 April, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Jayan vs State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police on 7 April, 2026

                                                                                       Crl.O.P.No.8673 of 2026
                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                        DATED : 07.04.2026

                                                             CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

                                                   Crl.O.P.No.8673 of 2026

                   1. Jayan
                   2. Santhosh                                                    ... Petitioner(s)

                                                               Vs.

                   The Inspector of Police,
                   Ponnerikarai Police Station,
                   Kanchipuram District.                                          ... Respondent(s)
                   Crime No.217 of 2025

                   PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023,
                   to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in Crime No.217 of 2025 pending on
                   the file of the respondent police.

                                    For Petitioner(s)          : Mr.V.Manimaran

                                    For Respondent(s)          : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar,
                                                                 Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

                                                             ORDER

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

25.10.2025 for the alleged offence under Section 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.217 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police,

seek bail.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners, along with the other

accused, waylaid the defacto complainant while he was transporting cash from

Karnataka to Chennai and robbed a sum of Rs.4.5 crores from him, and also

threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He would

further submit that the petitioners have been under incarceration since

25.10.2025 and are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be

imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioners.

4. The said contention was strongly opposed by the learned Government

Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent, who submitted that there are

four previous cases of a similar nature against the petitioners. He further

submitted that a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- was recovered from the first petitioner

and 70 gold coins (each weighing 8 grams) were recovered from the second

petitioner. It was also submitted that the investigation has been completed and

that the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by the concerned

Magistrate.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5. Considering the above facts and circumstances, particularly the period

of incarceration undergone by the petitioners, the fact that the investigation has

been completed, that the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail, and that

a substantial portion of the stolen property has been recovered, this Court is

inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail, subject to certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their

executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only)

each, with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned

learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram and subject to the following

conditions:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left 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 the identity proofs to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram, everyday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders and no relaxation petition shall be entertained for a period of 90 days;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[e] on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[f] if the petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

07.04.2026 skr

Note:

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

1. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram.

2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal

3. The Inspector of Police, Ponnerikarai Police Station, Kanchipuram District.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

skr

07.04.2026

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis