Johnson v. State Rep.By Its, the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

19.01.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 296(b), 132 and 351(3) of B.N.S. read with Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act in Cr. No.14 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page2 of 4

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on 19.01.2026 at about 4 p.m., when the respondent police party was on surveillance duty near Railway Station Road, the petitioner was found to be threatening the public with knife and was causing nuisance and when the same was questioned by the respondent, the petitioner abused him in filthy language and criminally intimidated them. Hence the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further vehemently submit that mere reading of the FIR discloses that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, as no independent witness has given any evidence. He would further submit that the petitioner has been under incarceration for the past more than 50 days and there are no serious allegations against the petitioner in the FIR and hence prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶4The said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was stoutly objected by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent police and he has produced the list of pending cases against the petitioner. Page3 of 4

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

¶6While perusing the list of cases against the petitioner submitted by the learned Government Advocate, it appears that the petitioner has got 12 previous cases in his credit and out of which, three cases are murder cases, which clearly demonstrates that whenever the petitioner was enlarged on bail, he had misused the liberty. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate. Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner is under incarceration for the past more than 50 days, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there would be fear psychosis among the witnesses. In the said circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 10-03-2026 MJS Note:

¶1Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

¶2All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code. Page4 of 4

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. MJS To

¶1The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶2The Inspector of Police, Gummudipoondi Police Station. 10-03-2026

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Johnson S/o. Brown, Pooneri Main Road, Eliyambedu 1st Street, Ponneri - 601 206. ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep.by its, The Inspector of Police Gummudipoondi Police Station, Cr.No.14/2026. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: The Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.14 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police. For Petitioner(s): M/S.L.Manisha For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Criminal side)