G.Kabilan vs The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police
2026 Latest Caselaw 1861 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1861 Mad
Judgement Date : 15 April, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

G.Kabilan vs The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police on 15 April, 2026

                                                                                      Crl.O.P.No.9211 of 2026
                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                        DATED : 15.04.2026

                                                             CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

                                                   Crl.O.P.No.9211 of 2026

                   G.Kabilan                                                     ... Petitioner(s)

                                                               Vs.

                   The State rep. by
                   The Inspector of Police,
                   Mayiladuthurai Railway Police Station,
                   Nagapattinam District.                                        ... Respondent(s)
                   Crime No.46 of 2022

                   PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023,
                   to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in S.C No.27 of 2023 in Crime No.46
                   of 2022, on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai..

                                    For Petitioner(s)          : Mr.T.Elumulai

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

                                                             ORDER

The petitioner, who had earlier jumped bail, was issued a non-bailable

warrant on 09.06.2025. It is stated that, at the time of issuance of the non-

bailable warrant, the petitioner was in judicial custody in connection with

another case. Subsequently, the petitioner was secured and remanded to judicial

custody on 30.01.2026.

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

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the

non-bailable warrant came to be issued on 09.06.2025, as the petitioner could

not appear before the Court since he was in judicial custody in another case. He

would further submit that the petitioner was secured on 30.01.2026 and has been

in custody for more than 70 days. It is his further submission that the petitioner

will hereafter appear before the Court regularly and cooperate with the trial for

its early disposal. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail.

3. 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 trial has not yet commenced.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular, the

fact that at the time of issuance of the non-bailable warrant the petitioner was in

judicial custody in another case, and also taking into consideration that the trial

has not yet commenced, the continued incarceration of the petitioner without

any progress in the trial would affect the liberty earlier granted to him by way of

bail. Hence, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case to enlarge the

petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.

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

5. 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

and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai, 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 District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai everyday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders and no relaxation petition shall be entertained for a period of 60 days;

[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];

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

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

15.04.2026 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 and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai.

2. The Superintendent, Sirkali Sub Jail.

3. The Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai Railway Police Station, Nagapattinam.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

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

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

skr

15.04.2026

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