Dismissed¶27

Balamurugan v. The State rep by The Inspector of Police

Madras HC13 Aug 2025CRL OP/22595/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected under S.483 BNSS 2023; accused involved in 20+ similar cases; habitual absconder secured by NBW, arrested 17.02.2025; direction to split up case against absconding accused and proceed with trial; PRC.No.29 of 2018; Crime No.171 of 2018; Pappireddipatti Police Station, Dharmapuri; Sections 379, 392, 394 & 451 IPC; Crl.O.P.No.22595 of 2025; G.Jayachandran J.; decided 13.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the records, the petitioner is involved in more than 20 cases of a similar nature and, due to his abscondence, none of those cases are progressing. ¶21

Balamurugan Vs The State rep by The Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.22595 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 13.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.22595 of 2025

¶7

Balamurugan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Pappireddipatti Police Station, Dharmapuri. (Crime No.171 of 2018) ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in PRC.No.29 of 2018 in Crime No.171 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate at Pappireddipatti.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Loganathan

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶13

1/4

¶14

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

¶15

Crl.O.P.No.22595 of 2025

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner, who is an accused in Crime No.171 of 2018 on the file of

¶18

the Pappireddipatti Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 379, 392, 394 & 451 of IPC, which is now at the PRC stage, was absconding for a long time and was secured by issuing a Non Bailable Warrant. The present petition is filed

¶19

for bail stating that he was arrested on 17.02.2025 and has been in judicial custody since then.

¶20

2. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the case is not progressing due to the absconding of other accused.

¶21

3. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner is involved more than 20 cases of a similar nature. Due to his abscondence, none of the cases are progressing. Now the petitioner has been secured by the police, the case can be tried after splitting up the case as against the absconding accused. If the petitioner released on bail, he is likely to abscond again and may not be available for trial. Hence, the respondent police is directed to split up the case against the absconding accused and proceed with the trial.

¶22

2/4

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.22595 of 2025

¶25

¶26

4. With the above observations, the Criminal Original Petition stands

¶27

dismissed.

¶28