Ashik Mohammed @ Al Ashik v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 17.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Ashik Mohammed @ Al Ashik ...Petitioner/Accused-4

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station, Dindigul. (Crime No. 1051 of 2021)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthukumar

Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 1051 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 27.02.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 307 IPC @ 294(b) and 302 IPC r/w Sections 120(B), 34 and 109 of IPC in Crime No. 1051 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, on

16.09.2021, when the defacto complainant was playing cricket with his friends, A1 has stabbed the deceased with knife and the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the complaint.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was already released on bail and since the petitioner has not turned up for the hearing, Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) was ordered to be issued 19.12.2024 and the same was executed on 27.02.2025 and he is still in judicial custody. He would further submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that due to non-appearance, the Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner has 39 previous cases, in which some of the cases are similar in nature and in this case, trial has already completed and prosecution witnesses were already closed and the case is posted for examination of defence side witnesses and hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶5This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, nature of offence, and considering the fact that already the petitioner was granted bail and thereafter, due to non-appearance, NBW was issued and considering the facts that the petitioner has 39 previous cases, in which some of the cases are similar in nature and in this case, trial has already completed and prosecution witnesses were already closed and the case is posted for examination of defence side witnesses, it is not appropriate to consider the bail application at this stage and also this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

(P D B J)

17.04.2026 apd

To

1.The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station, Dindigul.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRLeOP(MD).eNo.e6201eofe2026 oooooP.oDHANABAL,oJ oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooapd oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooORDER oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN oooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.o6201oofo2026 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooDateoo:o17.04.2026