Dismissed¶¶29

B.Amol v. The State Represented by

Madras HC9 Feb 2026CRL OP/2998/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, CRL OP No.2998 of 2026, decided 09.02.2026 by Justice K. Rajasekar: bail under Section 483 BNSS refused and petition dismissed for B.Amol, detained since 08.10.2025 in Crime No.219/2025 (Mudaliarpet Police Station, Puducherry) involving Sections 309(6), 317(2) with 3(5) BNSS 2024 (originally 304(2) BNS) over gold-chain snatching from two victims on a motorcycle; refusal grounded on petitioner being a habitual offender with criminal antecedents in several States per the Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry order.

What did the court decide?

On a perusal of the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry, it is revealed that the petitioner is a habitual offender with criminal antecedents in several States. ¶¶26

B.Amol Vs The State Represented by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL OP No.2998 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09.02.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

¶6

CRL OP No.2998 of 2026

B.Amol

Petitioner(s)

The State rep .by The Inspector of Police Mudaliarpet Police Station, Puducherry. Crime No.219 of 2025

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

PRAYER:

¶13

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.219 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Nirmal Kumar Sharma

¶15

For Respondent(s): Mr.M.V.Ramachandra Murthy, Public Prosecutor, (PUDUCHERRY)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner, who was arrested on 08.10.2025 for the alleged offence under Sections 309(6), 317(2) read with Section 3(5) of the BNSS 2024 (originally 304(2) of BNS) in connection with Crime No.219 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶18

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

¶19

CRL OP No.2998 of 2026

¶20

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner joining

¶21

hands with the other two accused snatched gold chain from two victims, while

¶22

riding a motorcycle. Hence, the case has been registered.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case by the respondent police. He further submitted that petitioner is in judicial custody since 08.10.2025 and he ready is ready to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any stringent condition, hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶24

The learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution’s case and submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender with criminal antecedents in several states. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶25

On a perusal of the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions

¶26

Judge, Puducherry, it is revealed that the petitioner is a habitual offender with criminal antecedents in several states. If bail is granted to the petitioner, he will indulge in similar offence, hence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶27

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

¶28

CRL OP No.2998 of 2026

¶29