Senthilkumar v. State Rep by

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

06.10.2025 for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 506(2), 341 of IPC and Section 3(1) of Prevention of Damages of Public Property Act in S.C No.98 of 2025, in Crime No.77 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the he was unable to appear before the trial Court on the date of hearing, NBW was issued against him on 06.10.2025. However, the petitioner was not served with summons. Therefore, he was unaware of the issuance of NBW. He was arrested on 06.10.2025. The absence of the petitioner is neither wilful nor wanton. The petitioner herein after undertakes that he will appear before the Court regularly. He has been suffering incarceration from 06.10.2025. Accordingly, prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶3The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent submitted that it is a case of jumped out bail. The petitioner herein is the 1 st accused in S.C. No.98 of 2025. Due to non-appearance of the petitioner before the lower Court, the trial judge has issued Non-Bailable Warrant against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner has 5 previous pending against him and that the investigation completed and the final report was filed. Hence, he vehemently objected for grant of bail to the petitioner.

1.

¶4Considering the facts and circumstances and the fact that the case is committed in S.C.No.98 of 2025 on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Tirupattur, and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner from 06.10.2025, investigation was completed and the final report was also filed, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶5Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties (out of which, one surety must be a blood surety), for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tirupattur, and on further conditions that:

(a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

(b) the petitioner shall stay at Nagapattinam and report before the Nagapattinam Town Police Station, respondent police on every Tuesday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of three months and the petitioner shall appear on every hearing before the trial Court without fail.

(c) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(d) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and;

(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

12.11.2025 Vv To

¶1The District and Sessions Judge, Tirupattur.

¶2The Sub Inspector of Police, Alangayam Police Station, Tirupattur.

¶3The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.

¶4The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. T.V.THAMILSELVI,J. Vv Crl.O.P.No.30454 of 2025

12.11.2025

Crl.O.P.No.30454 of 2025 T.V.THAMILSELVI, J. Today, this Criminal Original Petition is listed under the caption, "For Being Mentioned" at the instance of learned counsel for petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that this Court vide Order dated 12.11.2025, allowed Crl.O.P.No.30454 of 2025 by granting bail to the petitioner on certain conditions. Operative portion of the said order reads as follows: "5. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties (out of which, one surety must be a blood surety) for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tirupattur and on further conditions that: (a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity; (b) the petitioner shall stay at Nagapattinam and report before the Nagapattinam Town Police Station, respondent Police on every Tuesday at 10.30 a.m for a period of three months and the petitioner shall appear on every hearing before the trial Court without fail; (c) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (d) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; (e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala (2005) AIR SCW 5560; and (f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC." 2.1. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that in Clause (b) of Paragraph No.5 of the Order dated 12.11.2025 in Crl.O.P.No.30454 of 2025, this Court has imposed a condition that the petitioner shall stay at Nagapattinam and report before the Nagapattinam Town Police Station, respondent Police on every Tuesday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of three months. The condition imposed by this Court in Clause (b) of Paragraph No.5 of the said order is that the petitioner shall stay at Nagapattinam and report before the Nagapattinam Town Police Station. However, the words "respondent Police" reflected in said clause arise a doubt that whether the petitioner has to report before Nagapattinam Town Police Station or he has to report before the Alangayam Police Station, Tirupattur (respondent Police). Therefore, the learned counsel prayed that the words, "respondent Police" which have been typed in Clause (b) of Paragraph No.5 of the Order dated 12.11.2025 in Crl.O.P.No.30454 of 2025 may be removed. 3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing on behalf of respondent Police submitted that he has no serious objection for removing the words, "respondent Police" which have been typed in Clause (b) of Paragraph No.5 of the Order dated 12.11.2025 in Crl.O.P.No.30454 of 2025. 4. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is inclined to remove the words, "respondent Police" which have been typed in Clause (b) of Paragraph No.5 of the Order dated 12.11.2025 in Crl.O.P.No.30454 of 2025. Accordingly, the same is removed and Clause (b) of Paragraph No.5 of the Order dated 12.11.2025 in Crl.O.P.No.30454 of 2025 reads as follows: "(b) the petitioner shall stay at Nagapattinam and report before the Nagapattinam Town Police Station on every Tuesday at 10.30 a.m for a period of three months and the petitioner shall appear on every hearing before the trial Court without fail;" 5. In all other aspects, Order dated 12.11.2025 in Crl.O.P.No.30454 of 2025 passed by this Court, shall remain unaltered. Registry is directed to issue a fresh order copy to all