Hari @ Manikandan v. State Rep by Inspector of Police

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

08.03.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 126, 127(2), 140(1), 309, 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponds to Section 341, 342, 364, 390, 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code, 1860), in Crime No.187 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page2 of 4

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, who was an employee of the defacto complainant, due to prior enmity, was involved along with others in kidnapping the defacto complainant, wrongfully confining him and demanding ransom of Rs.1 crore and the accused persons also threatened him and extorted money. Hence, the case was registered.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been remanded to judicial custody on 08.03.2026 and the occurrence is said to have taken place on 25.02.2026 and there is delay in lodging the complaint which creates doubt over the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected with the alleged offence and has been in incarceration since 08.03.2026. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent strongly opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner is involved in a serious offence of kidnapping for ransom and a sum of Rs.1 crore was demanded and out of which substantial amount has been recovered. It is further submitted that the petitioner used his own vehicle in the commission of the offence and the investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner. Page3 of 4

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

¶6Considering the submissions of the learned counsel on either side, the serious nature of the allegations involving kidnapping and ransom, the fact that a large amount has been transacted, part of the amount has been recovered and the investigation is still pending, this Court is of the view that this is not an appropriate stage to consider the bail application of the petitioner. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 15-04-2026 NSL To

¶1The Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai.

¶2Sub Jail, Erode.

¶3The Inspector of Police, Perundurai Police Station, Erode District.

¶4The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o9333oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. NSL CRLoOPoNo.o9333oofo2026 15-04-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Hari @ Manikandan ..Petitioner Vs The State By, Inspector of Police, Perundurai Police Station, Erode District. (Crime No.187 of 2026) ..Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.187 of 2026 pending on the file of the Perundurai Police Station, Erode District. For Petitioner: Mr.R.Thamarai Selvan For Respondent: Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)