Jagadish vs The State Rep.By
2026 Latest Caselaw 2605 Mad

Madras High Court

Jagadish vs The State Rep.By on 14 May, 2026

                                                                            CRL OP No. 12273 of 2026


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                   DATED: 14-05-2026
                                                       CORAM
                                    THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
                                               CRL OP No. 12273 of 2026

                Jagadish

                                                                                     ..Petitioner(s)
                                                          Vs
                State rep by the Inspector of Police,
                K-5 Peravallur Police Station,
                Chennai District
                Cr.No.66 of 2026
                                                                                ..Respondent(s)

                Prayer: The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., to
                enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.66 of 2026 on the file of the respondent
                police.


                              For Petitioner(s):       Mr.P.Vignesh Kumar

                              For Respondent(s):       Mr.V.J.Priyadarsana
                                                       Government Advocate (Crl.Side)



                                                        ORDER

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

19.03.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 331, 305(a) of BNSS in

Cr.No.66 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

__________ Page1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with another

accused trespassed into the house of defacto complainant by break opening the

main door and grill gate and committed theft of 22 Sovereigns of gold jewels

and cash of Rs.20,000/-. Hence, the case.

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

petitioner is under judicial custody since 19.03.2026. He submits that the

petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as

alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner was not

named as an accused in the F.I.R. He also submitted that co-accused has been

released on bail. Therefore he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) reiterated the

prosecution case and submitted that only 6 sovereigns of gold has been

recovered. He further submitted that there are three previous cases against the

petitioner. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

__________ Page2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

6. Considering the rival submissions made on both sides, the nature of

offence and that the petitioner was not named as an accused in the F.I.R and

further considering that though the petitioner has some previous cases, he has

been granted bail in all those cases and that the co-accused has been released on

bail as well as the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court

is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on

bail on condition to execute 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 V Metropolitan Magistrate,

Egmore and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the Tiruvallur

Police Station daily at 10.30 a.m until further orders;

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

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

commission of which she is suspected;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during

investigation or trial;

__________ Page3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

[e] the petitioner 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 petitioner in accordance with law as

if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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].

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be

registered under Section 269 B.N.S.2023.

14-05-2026

Anu 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.

__________ Page4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

To

1. The V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore

2.The Inspector of Police, K-5 Peravallur Police Station, Chennai District

3.The Inspector of Police, Tiruvallur Police Station

4. The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal

5. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

__________ Page5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

P.DHANABAL, J.

Anu

14-05-2026

__________ Page6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis