High CourtsSingle Bench

Maniraja vs State Of Tamilnadu

Madras High Court · Decided on 31 October 2025 · Citation: (2025) 10 MAD CK 1327

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.Srimathy, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<li>Indian Penal Code, 1860 &mdash; Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 324</li><li>Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 &mdash; Section 269</li>
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Original Petition (MD) No. 19002 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 548 words

S.Srimathy, J

1.

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.07.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 302 r/w 149 IPC in Crime No.1009 of 2014, on the file of the respondent police, which was taken on file in S.C.No.174 of 2017, on the file of the V-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, seeks bail.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the respondent police has registered a case in Crime No.1009 of 2014 and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.174 of 2017 on the file of the V-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. In the said case, the petitioner has been arrayed as A3. Further based on the NBW, the petitioner was arrested on 18.07.2025. Subsequently, he filed a bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.3802 of 2025 and the same was dismissed by an order dated 28.08.2025. Hence, this petition.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that due to his work as contractual labour in the State of Andhrapradesh, the petitioner was not able to attend the trial Court. Hence, NBW was issued and based on the same, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and he is in judicial custody from 18.07.2025. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail to the petitioner.

4.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the petitioner has no previous cases. Further, the co-accused A-10 was already granted bail. However, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5.

Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioner has no previous cases and also considering the fact that the co-accused was already granted bail and also considering the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

6.

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) each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned V-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, and on further conditions that :-

[a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on all hearing dates without fail;

[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with the 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 is 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];

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.