SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 35934

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J
Jeyaseeli Xavier – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Anjugramam Police Station, Kanniyakumari District – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition | Crime No.258 of 2025 | Crl.M.P.3045 of 2025



Advocates:
For Petitioner: Mr.J.Manoj Kumar
For Respondent: Mr.S.Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor

High Court modified excessive bail surety from Rs.20 lakhs to Rs.5 lakhs under BNSS for proportionality.

Headnote:The petition challenges conditions imposed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, 2023, requiring sureties totaling Rs.20,00,000 for anticipatory bail in a criminal case registered under Crime No.258 of 2025. The High Court reviewed the trial court's order dated 13.02.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.3045 of 2025. The court modified the bail conditions considering the facts and circumstances. The sole issue was whether the surety condition of Rs.20,00,000 was excessive. The court held that modification was warranted, reducing the amount to ensure compliance without undue hardship, balancing the need for appearance with petitioner's rights. The revision petition is allowed, modifying the surety to a bond of Rs.5,00,000.

Table of Content
1. challenging excessive bail surety condition (Para 1 , 2)
2. court reviewed records and submissions (Para 3)
3. surety reduced to rs.5 lakhs; revision allowed (Para 4)

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the condition imposed vide order dated 13.02.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No. 3045 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Nagercoil, requiring the petitioner to furnish his own surety along with another surety for a sum of Rs.20,00,000.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner seeks to modify the aforesaid condition of the order of the trial Court.

3. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.

4. Considering the facts and circumstance of this case, the condition requiring the petitioner to furnish his own surety along with another surety for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- imposed vide order dated 13.02.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3045 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Nagercoil, is modified that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only), instead of Rs.20,00,000/-, as ordered by the trial Court.

5. This criminal revision case is allowed on the above terms.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top