Senthamizh Valavan vs The State By The Inspector Of Police,
2026 Latest Caselaw 1674 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1674 Mad
Judgement Date : 8 April, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Senthamizh Valavan vs The State By The Inspector Of Police, on 8 April, 2026

                                                                                     Crl.O.P.No.8855 of 2026
                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                        DATED : 08.04.2026

                                                             CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

                                                   Crl.O.P.No.8855 of 2026

                   Senthamizh valavan                                           ... Petitioner(s)

                                                               Vs.

                   State by
                   The Inspector of Police,
                   Mandharakuppam Police Station,
                   Cuddallore District.                                         ... Respondent(s)
                   Crime No.28 of 2026

                   PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023,
                   to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in Crime No. 28 of 2026 pending on
                   the file of the respondent police.

                                    For Petitioner(s)          : Mr.D.Ashokkumar

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

                                                             ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

10.02.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1),

329(4), 351(3) and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.28

of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

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

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that, due to previous enmity, the

petitioner attacked the defacto complainant with a knife, causing injuries, and

threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is

innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that

the petitioner has been in custody since 10.02.2026 and is ready to abide by any

stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Therefore, he prayed for

the grant of bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the

respondent, while opposing the grant of bail, reiterated the prosecution case and,

on instructions, submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital,

that the investigation has been completed, and that the petitioner has no bad

antecedents.

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

incarceration undergone by the petitioner, that the investigation has already been

completed, the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, and

also the fact that the petitioner has no bad antecedents, this Court is inclined to

enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain condition.

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

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on their

executing a 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 District

Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli, 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 respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of 30 days and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

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

[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

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

be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

08.04.2026 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 District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli.

2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddallore.

3. The Inspector of Police, Mandharakuppam Police Station, Cuddallore.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras

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

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

skr

08.04.2026

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