Harish vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police
2026 Latest Caselaw 2296 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2296 Mad
Judgement Date : 30 April, 2026

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Harish vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 30 April, 2026

Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan

Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan

                                                                                       Crl.O.P.No.11271 of 2026
                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                        DATED : 30.04.2026

                                                             CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                  Crl.O.P.No.11271 of 2026

                   Harish                                                          ... Petitioner(s)

                                                          Vs.
                   The State rep. by the Inspector of Police,
                   Koyambedu Police Station,
                   Chennai.                                                  ... Respondent(s)
                   Crime No.265 of 2026

                   PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023,
                   to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in Crime No.265 of 2026 pending on
                   the file of the respondent police.

                                    For Petitioner(s)          : Mr.M.Vijaya Ragavan

                                    For Respondent(s)          : 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 offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b) and

109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 147, 148,

294(b) and 307 of IPC) in Crime No.265 of 2026 on the file of the respondent

police, seek bail.

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

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that, due to previous enmity, the

petitioner, along with the other accused, waylaid the defacto complainant,

attacked him with a knife, and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence,

the case.

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

is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit

that the petitioner has been in custody since 29.03.2026 and is ready to abide by

any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed

for grant of bail.

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

respondent police, while opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner, reiterated

the prosecution case and, on instructions, submitted that the injured has been

discharged from the hospital and that the petitioner has no bad antecedents.

5. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the period

of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, the fact that the injured has been

discharged from the hospital, and also the fact that the petitioner has no bad

antecedents, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to

certain conditions.

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

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

executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with

two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Metropolitan

Magistrate No.V, Egmore 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 respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[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.

30.04.2026 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 Metropolitan Magistrate No.V, Egmore.

2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal

3. The Inspector of Police, Koyambedu Police Station, Chennai.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras

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

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.

skr

30.04.2026

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