Ramprakash Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Rajapalayam South

State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam South Police Station, Virudhnagar District. Crime No.136/2021. ... Respondent/Complainant

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Dinesh, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side)

¶12

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS

¶13

PRAYER :- C-38B. To enlarge the petitioner on bail in SC No.373 of 2025 on the file of the learned principal district and sessions judge, Virudhunagar in Cr.No.136/2021 on the file of the respondent police.

¶14

1/7

¶15

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

¶16

CRL OP(MD). No.14177 of 2026

¶17

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶18

The petitioner /A3, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.06.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 458 & 392 of IPC, in S.C.No.373 of 2025 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar, in connection with Crime No.136 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶19

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner herein was earlier arrested and released on bail. Subsequently, the final report was filed, and due to the non-appearance of the petitioner, a non-bailable warrant was issued against him on 08.06.2026. Thereafter, though the petitioner surrendered before the trial court, he was remanded to judicial custody on 07.06.2026.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was absconded on 08.06.2026 and earlier, he was regularly appeared before the trial court. Due to illhealth, he was not able to appear before the trial Court and recall the warrant immediately.

¶21

2/7

¶22

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

¶23

CRL OP(MD). No.14177 of 2026

¶24

However, therafter he filed a petition for re-call the warrant and the same

¶25

was dismissed and subsequently, he was remaded to judicial custody. He would furtehr submi that it is not a case of execution of non-bailable warrant since the petitioner has voluntarily surrendered before the trial Court. Since he is having several previous cases, he was not able to file a recall petition immediately on the date of issuance of the non-bailable warrant. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶26

The learned Counsel appearing for the State (Crl. Side) reiterated the prosecution case and on instructions, reported that the petitioner has 37 previous cases, and since the non-bailable warrant is pending for A7, the trial is not progressing. Further, it a case of jumbed out of bail and if the petitioner was released on bail, again there is likelihood of jumping out bail. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶27

This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶28

3/7

¶29

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

¶30

CRL OP(MD). No.14177 of 2026

¶31

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that it is a case of surrender and after dismissal of the recall petition, the petitioner was remanded and one of the co-accused is still absconding, a non-bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions.

¶32

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released

¶33

on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Rajapalayam, and on further conditions that:

¶34

[b] the petitioner shall report before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Rajapalayam, daily at 10.30 a.m., on all working days, for a period of three weeks, thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

¶35

[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to

¶36

the offence of which he/she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he/she is suspected;

¶37

4/7

¶38

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

¶39

CRL OP(MD). No.14177 of 2026

¶40

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶41

[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶42

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the 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)AIR SCW 51730].

¶43

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

(K R S J) 14.07.2026

VSG

5/7

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

¶48

CRL OP(MD). No.14177 of 2026