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
7 paragraphs · 297 wordsC.Kumarappan, J
The petitioner, who had jumped bail in a murder case, had been absconding for nearly one month. A non-bailable warrant issued against him on 24.11.2025 was executed on 19.12.2025.
It is the specific submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a non-bailable warrant had been issued against him on 24.11.2025 and that he was subsequently secured and remanded to judicial custody on 19.12.2025. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for more than three months and, therefore, this is a fit case to enlarge him on bail.
The said contention was strongly opposed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent, who submitted that the petitioner had been absconding for nearly one month and was secured only on 19.12.2025. It was further submitted that the petitioner has thirteen previous cases and, apart from that, he has been habitually absent before the trial Court on crucial dates, resulting in delay in the progress of the trial. It is his specific submission that, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of his absconding again and thereby delaying the trial.
I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.
Considering the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had absconded for nearly one month and was secured and remanded to judicial custody only on 19.12.2025. In such circumstances, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), there is every likelihood of the petitioner absconding again if he is enlarged on bail. Therefore, in order to secure his presence during trial, this Court is not inclined to grant bail.
Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.