M.Sundhar v. The State Rep by the Inspector of Police

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

11.10.2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 307, 506(ii), 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, in S.C.No.102 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page2 of 5

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is facing trial in S.C.No.102 of 2020 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 307, 506(ii), 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Due to his non-appearance before the Trial Court, a Non-Bailable Warrant was issued on 18.12.2024 and subsequently executed on 11.10.2025, pursuant to which the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was unable to appear before the Trial Court due to his medical condition and that the absence was neither wilful nor deliberate. It is further submitted that though the petitioner was secured and remanded, there has been no progress in the trial. The learned counsel also relied upon the e-Courts case status. Therefore, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that this is a Sessions Case of the year 2020 and the progress of the trial has been affected due to the conduct of the accused. It is further submitted that the petitioner has three previous NDPS cases and one murder case. Therefore, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶5I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. Page3 of 5

¶6This Court is of the view that upon perusal of the records and the e-Courts case status, it appears that the accused were repeatedly absent and proceedings were delayed. After one accused was secured, another accused absconded, thereby affecting the progress of the trial. Therefore, this Court cannot find fault with the prosecution regarding production of witnesses. Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, namely three NDPS cases and one murder case and also considering that the Sessions Case is of the year 2020, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. However, the respondent police are directed to secure and produce the witnesses without seeking adjournments and the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 01-06-2026 NSL 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 5 To

¶1The learned XXI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶2Central Prison, Puzhal.

¶3The Inspector of Police, D-1, Triplicane Police Station, Chennai District.

¶4The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o13503oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. NSL CRLoOPoNo.o13503oofo2026 01-06-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN M.Sundhar ..Petitioner Vs State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, D-1, Triplicane Police Station, Chennai District. ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in S.C.No.102 of 2020 pending on the file of XXI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. For Petitioner: Mr.P.Muthamizh Selvakumar For Respondent: Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.Side)