Jegan @ Jegadeesh vs State Rep By The Inspector Of Police
2026 Latest Caselaw 1788 Mad

Madras High Court

Jegan @ Jegadeesh vs State Rep By The Inspector Of Police on 10 April, 2026

                                                                                       Crl.O.P.No.8946 of 2026
                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                        DATED : 10.04.2026

                                                             CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

                                                   Crl.O.P.No.8946 of 2026

                   Jegan @ Jegadeesh                                              ... Petitioner(s)

                                                               Vs.

                   State rep. by
                   The Inspector of Police,
                   C.2, Elephant Gate Police Station,
                   Chennai.                                                       ... Respondent(s)
                   Crime No.434 of 2025

                   PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023,
                   to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in Crime No.434 of 2025 pending on
                   the file of the respondent police.

                                    For Petitioner(s)          : Mr.N.Vijayaraj

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

                                                             ORDER

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

27.02.2026 for the alleged offence under Section 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 406 IPC) in Crime No.434 of 2025 on

the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

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

2. The petitioner is running a shop in the name and style of M/s. Speed

India Xpress Cargo & Logistics. When the defacto complainant entrusted five

parcels containing jewellery items for transportation to Bangalore, out of the

five parcels, one parcel worth Rs.90,00,000/- allegedly went missing. Hence, it

is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had misappropriated the said

amount. Hence, the case.

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

is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit

that the petitioner has been in custody since 27.02.2026 and is ready to abide by

any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He further

submitted that the co-accused were granted anticipatory bail by the learned

Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, vide order dated 04.02.2026 passed in

Crl.MP.No.982 of 2026. Hence, he prayed for the grant of bail.

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

respondent, while opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner, reiterated the

prosecution case and, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner has no bad

antecedents and that the co-accused were already granted anticipatory bail by

the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.

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

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

incarceration undergone by the petitioner, the fact that the petitioner has no bad

antecedents, and also the fact that the co-accused were already granted

anticipatory bail, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with

certain conditions.

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 VIII

Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai 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 15 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;

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

[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.

10.04.2026 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

To

1. The learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai.

3. The Inspector of Police, C.2, Elephant Gate Police Station, Chennai.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras

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

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

skr

10.04.2026

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