Anthony Albert @ Albert vs The State Rep By
2026 Latest Caselaw 2305 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2305 Mad
Judgement Date : 30 April, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Anthony Albert @ Albert vs The State Rep By on 30 April, 2026

Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan

Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan

                                                                                    Crl.O.P.No.11185 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.11185 of 2026

                   Anthony Albert @ Albert                                      ... Petitioner(s)

                                                               Vs.

                   The State rep. by
                   The Inspector of Police,
                   Uthangarai Police Station,
                   Krishnagiri District.                                        ... Respondent(s)
                   Crime No.402 of 2017

                   PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023,
                   to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in S.C.No.61 of 2026 on the file of
                   the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.

                                    For Petitioner(s)          : Mr.T.Meganathan

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

                                                             ORDER

The petitioner, who had earlier jumped bail, was issued a non-bailable

warrant on 13.05.2024. It is stated that, at the time of issuance of the non-

bailable warrant, the petitioner was in judicial custody in connection with

another case. Subsequently, the petitioner was secured and remanded to judicial

custody on 06.03.2025.

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

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

non-bailable warrant came to be issued on 13.05.2024, as the petitioner could

not appear before the Court since he was in judicial custody in another case. He

would further submit that the petitioner was secured on 06.03.2025 and has been

in custody for more than 45 days. It is his further submission that the petitioner

will hereafter appear before the Court regularly and cooperate with the trial for

its early disposal. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail.

3. 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 trial has not yet commenced.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular, the

fact that at the time of issuance of the non-bailable warrant the petitioner was in

judicial custody in another case, and also taking into consideration that the trial

has not yet commenced, the continued incarceration of the petitioner without

any progress in the trial would affect the liberty earlier granted to him by way of

bail. Hence, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case to enlarge the

petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.

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

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

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

two sureties, one among the surety shall be a blood relative of the accused, each

for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Krishnagiri, 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 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri twice a day at 10.30 a.m. and 05.30 p.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;

[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 Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.

2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.

3. The Inspector of Police, Uthangarai Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

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