Dismissed¶27

Ramu v. State rep.by

Madras HC16 Apr 2026CRL MP/6756/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, C.Kumarappan J., 16.04.2026; CRL MP No.6756 of 2026 in Crl.RC.No.1425 of 2024; petition under Section 528 BNSS 2023 to modify condition directing deposit of Rs.50,000/- as security (Crime No.18 of 2024); petitioner Ramu, third-party owner of vehicle in Section 302 IPC case (Crime No.301 of 2023), not an accused; no appearance for petitioner; Government Advocate (Crl. Side) objected; no justifiable reason to relax condition; Criminal Miscellaneous Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Although the petitioner is not an accused and is a third-party owner of the vehicle involved in the Section 302 IPC offence, the Court found no justifiable reason to relax the security-deposit condition, there being no representation on behalf of the petitioner. ¶25

Ramu Vs State rep.by — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.04.2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶5

CRL MP No.6756 of 2026 in Crl.RC.No.1425 of 2024

Ramu

..Petitioner(s)

The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Kelambakkam Police Station, Pallikaranai District. (Crime No.301 of 2023)

¶10

..Respondent(s)

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 praying to modify the condition order in 4^th paragraph condition No.(iii) that “the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- as security in connection with Crime No.18 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police” dated 02.09.2025.

¶12

For Petitioner(s): No appearance For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Kishore Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to modify the

¶15

condition order in para No.4(iii) that “the petitioner shall deposit a sum of

¶16

Rs.50,000/- as security in connection with Crime No.18 of 2024 on the file of

¶17

the respondent police” dated 02.09.2025.

¶18

Page1 of 2

¶19

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

¶20

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

¶21

2. There is no representation for the petitioner.

¶22

3. The learned Government Advocate has raised the serious objection for

¶23

the application being allowed.

¶24

4. The allegation against this petitioner is in respect of the vehicle

¶25

involved in a Section 302 IPC offence. Though the petitioner is not an accused and a third party owner, this Court could not find any justifiable reason to relax

¶26

the condition and there is also no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

¶27

5. Hence, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.

16.04.2026

ata