Naveen vs State Rep By Inspector Of Police
2026 Latest Caselaw 2004 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2004 Mad
Judgement Date : 17 April, 2026

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Naveen vs State Rep By Inspector Of Police on 17 April, 2026

                                                                                       Crl.O.P.No.9551 of 2026
                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                        DATED : 17.04.2026

                                                             CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

                                                   Crl.O.P.No.9551 of 2026

                   1. Naveen
                   2. Ashok Kumar                                               ... Petitioner(s)

                                                               Vs.

                   State rep. by
                   The Inspector of Police,
                   Tiruvannamalai Taluk Police Station,
                   Tiruvannamalai District.                                     ... Respondent(s)
                   Crime No.44 of 2026

                   PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023,
                   to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in Crime No.44 of 2026 pending on
                   the file of the respondent police.

                                    For Petitioner(s)          : Mr.G.Saravanabhavan

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

                                                             ORDER

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

19.03.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 309(4) of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 392 of IPC) in Crime No.44 of

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

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

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that petitioners had allegedly

involved in the chain snatching of the defacto complainant. 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

19.03.2026 and are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be

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

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 petitioners have no bad antecedents and that

the stolen property has been recovered from the petitioner.

5. Though the allegation is serious in nature, considering the totality of

the circumstances, the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioners, the

fact that the petitioners have no bad antecedents, and also the fact that the stolen

property has been recovered, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on

bail with certain conditions.

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

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

Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruvannamalai 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent everyday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of 30 days and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

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

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

17.04.2026 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, Tiruvannamalai.

2. The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Tiruvannamalai.

3. Inspector of Police, Tiruvannamalai Taluk Police Station, Tiruvannamalai.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

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

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

skr

17.04.2026

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