SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 19405

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.KUMARAPPAN, J
Jeeva – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
Criminal Original Petition | Crime No.10 of 2026



Important Points

Bail cannot be granted if there is a risk of absconding and prior cases pending against a petitioner.

Subject

Criminal Law - Bail Application

Act Referred

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita: S.310
Section 483: S.BNSS, 2023

Headnote

The petitioners sought bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 after being arrested for alleged offences under Section 310(4) and (5). The court noted the petitioners' judicial custody since 10.01.2026 and the opposition from the Government Advocate citing previous cases against them. The court concluded that bail was not warranted due to the risk of absconding and the need to secure their presence at trial. The Criminal Original Petition was ultimately dismissed.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.T.Shanmugaboopathi
For the Respondents:Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

Table of Content
1. petitioners arrested under bnss for preparation of dacoity. (Para 2)
2. opposition to bail based on misused liberty and previous cases. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's decision against bail to prevent absconding. (Para 5 , 6)

ORDER

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

10.01.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 310(4) and 310(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.10 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that, cn 10.01.2026 at about

07.00 a.m., the petitioners, along with other accused persons, were found forming an unlawful assembly and allegedly making preparations for committing dacoity. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that they have been in judicial custody since 10.01.2026 and that the charge against them is only with regard to preparation for dacoity. The learned counsel would further submit that the case has been falsely foisted against them and hence, it is a fit case to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

4. The said contention was strongly opposed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent, who submitted that three previous cases are pending against the petitioners. He further submitted that, if enlarged on bail, the petitioners are likely to misuse the liberty granted by this Court. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6. On consideration of the facts of the case, it is seen that three previous cases are pending against the petitioners. In view of the antecedents of the petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that it is not desirable to enlarge them on bail at this stage. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), there is every likelihood of the petitioners absconding if they are enlarged on bail. Therefore, in order to secure their presence during trial, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top