Disposed

R.Jagan v. The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police

Madras HC4 Nov 2025CRL OP/29988/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner arrested for allegedly attacking a defacto complainant with others, damaging property worth about Rs.15 lakhs and abusing him, sought bail citing business rivalry. Considering the nature of offence and period of incarceration, the court granted conditional bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on executing Rs.25,000 bond with two sureties after depositing Rs.5,000, subject to reporting, interrogation, and non-threat conditions before Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram.

R.Jagan Vs The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.29988 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.29988 of 2025

R.Jegan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Kumaratchi Police Station, Cuddalore District. (Crime No.98 of 2025) ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on bail in Crime No.98 of 2025 pending on the file of the respondent Police.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Muralikrishna for M/s.Rityam Legal For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody

¶15

on 17.09.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 329(4), 324(4), 296(b), 115(2), 303(2), 326(g) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 in

¶16

Crime No.98 of 2025, registered on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.29988 of 2025

¶20

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner joining

¶21

hands with others had entered into the defacto complainant's premises and attacked him and also damaged the properties worth about about Rs.15 lakhs and also scolded and abused the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

¶23

the petitioner is document writer and due to business rivalry, a false and exaggerated complaint has been lodged by the defacto complainant. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶24

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that, investigation is pending. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶25

5 . Considering the the nature of offence and taking into account

¶26

the period of incarceration, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions:

¶27

2/6

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.29988 of 2025

¶30

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the credit of Crime No.98 of 2025 and on such deposit, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties , each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram and on further conditions that:

¶31

[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;

¶32

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30.a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

¶33

[c] the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required;

¶34

[d] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de facto complainant and witnesses;

¶35

3/6

¶36

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

¶37

Crl.O.P.No.29988 of 2025

¶38

[e] the petitioner to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard;

¶39

[f] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned 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)13 SCC 283 ];

¶40

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

04.11.2025

sma

4/6

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

¶45

Crl.O.P.No.29988 of 2025

¶46

Note :

¶47

Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

¶48

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.

¶49

¶50

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram

¶51

2.The Inspector of Police, Kumaratchi Police Station, Cuddalore District.

¶52

3.The Central Prison, Cuddalore.

¶53

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶54

5/6

¶55

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

¶56

Crl.O.P.No.29988 of 2025

¶57

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

¶58

sma

¶59

Crl.O.P.No.29988 of 2025

¶60

04.11.2025

¶61

6/6

¶62

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

R.Jagan v. The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Jagan v. The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Vs State Rep by, Inspector of Police

Sadanandam Vs State represented by

Vikesh Kumar Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Inspector of Police

Thirunavukarasu Vs State rep. by, The Inspector of Police

Pasupathi Vs The State rep by The Inspector of Police

Abou Vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police