Allowed

Jaisiva v. State rep by

Madras HC1 Dec 2025CRL OP/32263/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners in custody since 12.09.2025 for murder under Section 103 BNS sought bail after an earlier dismissal. Investigation was reported complete and no prior cases were shown; bail granted on bond with two sureties and conditions including daily reporting for four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered released on bail on Rs.25,000 bond each with two sureties, subject to reporting and conduct conditions.

Jaisiva Vs State rep by — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Crl.OP.No.32263 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.32263 of 2025

¶7

Jaisiva 2. Suman ... Petitioners Vs. State of Tamilnadu rep by The Inspector of Police, Tiruvallur Taluk Police Station, Tiruvallur District. ... Respondent (Cr.No.293 of 2025)

¶8

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in Cr.No.293 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Parthiban

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R

¶11

The petitioners, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.09.2025, for the offences punishable under Section 103 of BNS in Crime

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

Crl.OP.No.32263 of 2025

¶15

No.293 of 2025, registered on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners herein along

¶17

with other accused conspired together and called the deceased namely Sankar under the pretext of consuming liquor; that thereafter, they attacked the deceased on his head using beer bottles and stones, thereby the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died. Hence, this case.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that

¶19

the petitioners were falsely implicated in this case and they are in judicial custody since 12.09.2025; that the petitioners are the friend of the deceased and on the alleged day of occurrence, the petitioners had consumed liquor along with the deceased and thereafter they have left the place, therefore purely on suspicion, they were roped into this case; and that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and sought for bail to the petitioners.

¶20

Earlier, the bail application of the petitioners was dismissed on

¶21

30.10.2025 in Crl.O.P.No.29528 of 2025, on the ground that the 2

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.OP.No.32263 of 2025

¶24

investigation was not completed. And now, it has been stated by the learned

¶25

Government Advocate(criminal side), that the investigation is completed. Awaiting opinion for filing the report. Further, it is stated that the petitioner

¶26

is not having any previous cases. Hence, I am inclined to grant bail to the

¶27

petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

¶28

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on

¶29

their executing a separate bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty

¶30

Five Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tiruvallur, and on further

¶31

conditions that:-

¶32

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and

¶33

Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate

¶34

may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to

¶35

ensure their identity;

¶36

[b] the petitioners shall report before the Trial

¶37

Court daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks.

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

Crl.OP.No.32263 of 2025

¶41

[c ] the petitioners shall not abscond either during

¶42

investigation or trial;

¶43

[d] the petitioners shall not tamper with the

¶44

evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶45

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions,

¶46

the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate

¶47

action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail

¶48

by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself, as laid down by

¶49

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala

¶50

[(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

¶51

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

¶52

registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

01.12.2025

mpa

Note:

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

¶58

Crl.OP.No.32263 of 2025

¶59

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

¶60

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.

¶61

¶62

The Judicial Magistrate-I, Tiruvallur.

¶63

The Inspector of Police, Tiruvallur Taluk Police Station, Tiruvallur District.

¶64

3.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal.

¶65

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶66

¶67

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

¶68

Crl.OP.No.32263 of 2025

¶69

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

¶70

mpa

¶71

Crl.O.P.No.32263 of 2025

¶72

¶73

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

¶74

Crl.OP.No.32263 of 2025

¶75

01.12.2025

¶76

¶77

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

Jaisiva v. State rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaisiva v. State rep by

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

Jafar Vs State Rep. by

Akkala Siva Kottaiah Vs Union Ofindia Thorough Inspector

S. Sasikumar Vs State Rep. by

Saravanan Vs The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police

Anandan @ Pani Anand Vs State, Represented by the Inspector of Police

Syed Dadu Vs The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police