Kalaimogan@ Kalaimagan v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Kadamalaikundu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 27.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD). No. 15443 of 2026 Kalaimogan @ Kalaimagan

...Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kadamalaikundu Police Station, Theni District. (Crime No.338 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.Kannan Gurusami

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. 338 of 2026 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 22.06.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 324(4), 329(4), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3), 109(1) of BNS and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, in Crime No.338 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner joining hands with other accused formed an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons, trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant, abused him, attacked him with the weapons and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

¶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 is in custody from 22.06.2026 and ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court. The earlier bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has bad antecedents. Out of six previous cases three cases are ended in aquittal. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioners.

¶4The learned Counsel appearing for the State reiterated the prosecution case and reported that the petitioner has six previous case. Earlier bail application filed this petitioner along with co-accused was dismissed only in respect of this petitioner, since he has bad antecedents. Though three cases are ended in acquittal, the other cases are two under Prohibition Act and one under Section 354 of IPC. Thereafter, there is no change in circumstances. There is counter case has also been registered. The injured was discharged from the hospital. Investigation in this case is still pending. Hence, he prays to dismiss this application.

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

¶6Earlier though this court dismissed the bail application in respect of this petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has six previous cases, now it is brought to the notice of this Court that out of six previous cases, three cases are ended in acquittal and the other two cases also only under Prohibition Act and 354 of IPC. In view of the same and also considering the period of incarceration, I am 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.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks, thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [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)

27.07.2026 TM To

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kadamalaikundu Police Station, Theni District. (Crime No.338 of 2026)

3.The Superintendent, District Jail, Theni.

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

K. RAJASEKAR, J. TM ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 15443 of 2026 Date : 27.07.2026