B.J.Gogai v. State Rep by Its, the Inspector of Police,

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

18.04.2025 for the alleged offences under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and subsequently altered to Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, in Crime No.525 of 1994 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2It is the case of the prosecution that there are totally two accused and that the occurrence took place in the year 1994. Due to a family dispute, the first and second accused allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy and murdered the deceased. The first accused was tried, convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. However, the second accused/petitioner absconded for nearly 21 years, was subsequently secured by the respondent police and remanded to judicial custody. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner has been in custody since 18.04.2025 and that, in any event, his further custody is not required for the purpose of investigation. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of bail, reiterated the prosecution case and, on instructions, submitted that though the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents, he had deliberately absconded for nearly 21 years and was secured only after sustained efforts by the respondent police. He further submitted that steps are being taken to conclude the trial at the earliest possible point of time. It was also submitted that, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of his absconding once again and thereby jeopardising the trial.

¶5Hence, considering the conduct of the petitioner in concealing himself underground and the efforts taken by the police to secure him during the past 21 years, the fact that the co-accused has already been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, and having regard to the nature of the allegations, this Court is of the view that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, the same would jeopardise the prosecution case, and there is an imminent danger for the early disposal of the case pending before the trial Court. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. However, this Court would like to direct the learned Principal District Judge, Ranipet, before whom the case is pending, to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible.

¶6Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

24.07.2026 skr To

¶1The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Arakkonam, Ranipet District.

¶2The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore

¶3The Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Town Police Station, Ranipet District.

¶4The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras C.KUMARAPPAN,J. skr

24.07.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN B.J.Gogai ... Petitioner(s) Vs. The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Town Police Station, Ranipet District. ... Respondent(s) Crime No.525 of 1994 PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.525 of 1994 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s) : Mr.M.Vinoth Kanna For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.Yogaraj Sekar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)