Jones Darwin vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2031 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2031 Mad
Judgement Date : 20 April, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Jones Darwin vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of ... on 20 April, 2026

                                                                              Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7323 of 2026

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

                                                   Date : 20.04.2026

                                                       PRESENT

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

                                            CRL OP(MD). No. 7323 of 2026

                1.Jones Darwin
                2.Krishnan                                             ... Petitioners
                                                      Vs

                State of Tamil Nadu rep. by
                The Inspector of Police,
                Thanjavur Tamil University Police Station,
                Thanjavur District.
                (Crime No.68 of 2026)                             ...Respondent/Complainant

                                  For Petitioner : Mr.S.Veerapandiselvaraj
                                                   Advocate.
                                  For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan
                                                   Additional Public Prosecutor

                      PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.468 of BNSS

                PRAYER :-

                    For Bail in Cr.No. 68 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

                ORDER :

The Court made the following order :-

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

04.03.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 304(2) of BNS, in Crime

No.68 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

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

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.02.2026 when the defacto

complainant riding her two wheeler, the two unknown persons robed the gold

jewel from her. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the defacto

complainant, the case was registered.

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

petitioners are innocent and they have not involved in any offence as alleged in

the FIR. The petitioners are falsely implicated in this case. The co-accused in

this case has been released on bail by this Court. Therefore, prayed to grant bail

for the petitioners.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent

would submit that the offence is grave in nature. When the defacto complainant

was riding her two wheeler, the accused persons snatched the gold chain of the

defacto complainant. The petitioners each have 15 previous cases similar in

nture. Co-accused was released on bail by this court. Hence, he vehemently

opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners.

5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on

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

record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on

either side, even according to the prosecution, the petitioners not named

accused in this case. The alleged occurrence took place on 23.02.2036, but they

were arrested on 04.03.2026, already some of the properties were recovered,

though the petitioners are having 15 previous cases, already in all those case,

they were granted bail, and also taking into consideration of the period of

incarceration undergone by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant bail to

the petitioners subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on

bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees

Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the

satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur and on

further conditions that:

[b] the petitioners shall report before the learned Judicial

Magistrate No.I, Vizhupuram, at 10.30 a.m., on all working days,

until further orders;

[c] the petitioners shall not commit any offence similar to the

offence of which he/she is accused, or suspected, or of the

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

commission of which he/she is suspected;

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation

or trial;

[e] the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts

of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the

Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned

Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action

against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions

have been imposed and the petitioners 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)AIR SCW 5560].