Jayakumar v. The State Rep by the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

22.07.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 127(2), 140(2), 308(4), 311 Page2 of 4 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 in Crime No.215 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners along with other accused are alleged to have forcefully taken the defacto complainant in a car at knife point and threatened the victim and also had taken 5 sovereign gold chain and also demanded Rs.30 lakhs, resulting in the registration of a case.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and that they had not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that there are no previous case pending against these petitioners and they were arrested and still in judicial custody since 22.07.2026 and the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the Petitioners.

¶4Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioners had forcefully taken the defacto complainant in a car at knife point and threatened the victim and also had taken 5 sovereign gold chain. The respondent police has recovered 5 sovereign gold chain, four cellphones, three knives and one car from the petitioners. Hence, he opposed Page3 of 4 the grant of bail to the Petitioners.

¶5Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the serious nature of the serious offence and the prima facie material available on record against these petitioners and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent Police, this Court does not find it a fit case to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to enlarge the petitioner on bail since there is possibility of these petitioners absconding and indulging in similar kind of offences.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 18-08-2026 GV Page4 of 4

N.RAMESH, J. GV To

¶1The Inspector of Police G-3, Kilpauk police Station, Chennai,

¶2The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 18-08-2026

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.RAMESH 1. Jayakumar Care of Balamurugan, No.95/F, Ellaiamman Kovil Street, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai-600019. 2. Jay Saravanan S/o, Balamurugan, No.23/24, Srinivasapuram, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai-600019. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State rep by the Inspector of Police G-3, Kilpauk police Station, Chennai, Crime No.215 of 2026. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.215 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police. For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Illiyas For Respondent(s): Mr.M.M.I.Khaleel, Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)