Gopinath vs The State Rep By The Sub Inspector Of ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2006 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2006 Mad
Judgement Date : 17 April, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Gopinath vs The State Rep By The Sub Inspector Of ... on 17 April, 2026

                                                                                      Crl.O.P.No.9559 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.9559 of 2026

                   Gopinath, S/o.Loganathan                                             ... Petitioner
                                                             Vs.
                   State rep. By
                   The Sub Inspector of Police,
                   Veeranam Police Station,
                   Salem District.
                   Crime No.74/2026                                              ... Respondent

                   PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya
                   Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
                   No.74 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

                                    For Petitioner    : Mr.S.Mohamed Abbas
                                    For Respondent     : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
                                                        Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
                                                          ORDER

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

29.03.2026, for the alleged offence under Sections 126(2), 309(4), 311, and

351 (3) of BNS, 2023, in respect of Crime No.74 of 2026 on the file of the

respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was having an illicit

relationship with the wife of the de-facto complainant. In furtherance thereof, he

committed robbery of Rs.1500/- from the de-facto complainant. Hence, the

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

petitioner was arrested.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit 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 petitioner

has been in incarceration since 29.03.2026. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the

petitioner.

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

respondent Police reiterated the prosecution's case and strongly opposed the bail

application on the ground that the petitioner has got two previous cases. Hence,

he opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. I have considered the submissions made on both sides and also perused

the records available.

6. Considering the totality of the circumstances of the case and taking

note of the fact the petitioner has been in custody since 29.03.2026, and further,

the allegation of robbery in the back drop of the fact of the prosecution case is to

be viewed with some allowance, hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the

petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.

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

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his

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

Judicial Magistrate V, Salem, 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 respondent police daily twice at 10.30 a.m., and 5.30 p.m. for a period of 30 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 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 C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

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

mp

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.

17.04.2026 mp

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.

To: