Prasanna Kumar vs The Inspector Of Police
2026 Latest Caselaw 1921 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1921 Mad
Judgement Date : 16 April, 2026

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Prasanna Kumar vs The Inspector Of Police on 16 April, 2026

                                                                                 Crl.O.P.No.9389 of 2026


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED : 16.04.2026

                                                          CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

                                                 Crl.O.P.No.9389 of 2026
                  Prasanna Kumar                                               ... Petitioner
                                                            Vs.

                  State Rep. by its
                  The Inspector of Police,
                  V-1 Villivakkam Police Station,
                  Villivakkam,
                  Chennai – 049.
                  (Crime No.156 of 2026)                                      … Respondent

                  PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya
                  Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
                  connection with Crime No.156 of 2026 pending on the file of the respondent.

                                    For Petitioner     : Mr.L.K.Charles Alexander

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

                                                          ORDER

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

26.03.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b),

115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS (corresponding Sections 147, 143, 294(b),

109, 323, 506(ii) IPC) in Crime No.156 of 2026 on the file of the respondent

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

police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity between

the accused and the de facto complainant’s son, the petitioner along with

other accused attacked the de facto complainant with knife and cause injuries.

Hence, the case.

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

has been falsely implicated in this case and that he has not committed any

offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the co-

accused have already been enlarged on bail in Crl.M.P.No.3244 of 2026 dated

15.04.2026. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

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

respondent police submitted that totally there are 6 accused in this case, and

the petitioner is arrayed as A5. He further submitted that the injured has

already been discharged from the hospital.

5. Taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances and the

fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, and that the co-

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

accused have already been released on bail in Crl.M.P.No.3244 of 2026 dated

15.04.2026, this Court is of the firm view that at this length of time, the

custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, this Court is

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

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

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

XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai District, and on further

conditions that:

[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 XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders;

[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 pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

16.04.2026 cda

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: