Prakash v. The State of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 07.08.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD). No. 14766 of 2026 Prakash

...Petitioner

Vs

1.State Represented by The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul Division, Dindigul District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Ammayanaickanur Police Station, Dindigul District. (Crime No.148 of 2017)

...Respondents/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Satish Rajkumar

Advocate

For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 148 of 2017 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 03.11.2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 395 r/w. 397 IPC, in Crime No.148 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police in S.C.No. 146 of 2021 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Sessions Judge, Dindigul, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on 10.06.2017 the petitioner joining hands with other accused entered into the defacto complainant's house forcibly and committed robbery of cash and jewels. Hence, the case was registered. Therefore, the petitioner was earlier arrested and released on bail. Investigation in this case has been completed and charge sheet was also filed and the same was taken cognizance and pending trial in S.C.No.146 of 2021 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul. The petitioner has appeared before the trial Court regularly. On 08.10.2025, the petitioner was absent to appear before the trial court. Hence, NBW was issued and the same was executed on 03.11.2025.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner has appeared before the trial Court regularly. Due to the ill-health only he was not able to appear before the trial Court on 08.10.2025. Hence, the non bailable warrant was issued against him. Now the petitioner is in custody from

03.11.2025 nearly one year. But there is no progress in trial. He is ready to co-operate with the trial process. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

¶4The learned Counsel appearing for the State reiterated the prosecution case and reported that now the date of trial has been fixed and the case was posted for examination of witnesses. The petitioner has 6 previous cases. Hence, he opposed to grant of bail to the petitioner.

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

¶6This court also called for the report from the concerned trial Court and report was received, wherein it has been revealed that the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody from the month of October 2025. But, the trial has not been progressed. Only recently the trial date is fixed. It is also revealed that the petitioner is also having 6 previous cases including one another case murder in Crime No.135 of 2019. In view of the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody for a period of around 9 months and there is no progress in the trial process, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions. [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the learned I Additional District Judge, Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks; [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he/she is suspected; [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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 51730]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

(K R S J)

07.08.2026 TM To

1.The Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul.

2.The I Additional District Judge, Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul Division, Dindigul District.

4.The Inspector of Police, Ammayanaickanur Police Station, Dindigul District. (Crime No.148 of 2017)

5.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Dindigul.

6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

K. RAJASEKAR, J. TM ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 14766 of 2026 Date : 07.08.2026