Jeevanantham@Jeeva v. The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Jeevanantham @ Jeeva ..Petitioner Vs The State rep. by The Inspector of Police Hasthampatty Police Station, Salem District.

Crime No.02 of 2024 ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in P.R.C.No.125 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem. For Petitioner:

Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi For Respondent:

Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.10.2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 307 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.02 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the defacto complainant, who belong to the same village had previous enmity and on the date of occurrence, the petitioner along with other accused quarrelled with the defacto complainant and stabbed him, causing injuries. Based on the complaint, the respondent police registered the case. Subsequently, the petitioner was released on bail. Thereafter, the respondent police filed charge sheet in P.R.C.No.125 of 2024 before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem. On 09.06.2025, due to non-appearance of the petitioner, Non-Bailable Warrant was issued and the same was executed on 28.10.2025, and since then the petitioner is in custody.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity. It is submitted that the petitioner was earlier granted bail and was complying with the conditions imposed by the Court. The learned counsel would further submit that on the date of hearing, the petitioner could not appear before the Court due to ill health, which resulted in issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been in incarceration since 28.10.2025. The learned counsel would further contend that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the trial and will not abscond or tamper with witnesses. Hence, he prayed for granting bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that Non-Bailable Warrant was issued on 09.06.2025 and the petitioner was secured only on 28.10.2025 after considerable efforts. It is further submitted that the petitioner has got four previous cases of robbery and the present case arises out of Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is serious in nature. It is also submitted that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is a likelihood of delay in trial and interference with the proceedings. Hence, he strongly opposed the grant of bail.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6. This Court is of the view that from the submission of the learned counsel on either side, it is seen that Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against the petitioner on 09.06.2025 and he was secured only on 28.10.2025. It is further seen that the petitioner has criminal antecedents, including four previous cases of robbery and the present case involves a serious offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Considering the nature of allegations and the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the matter is still at a premature stage to consider the bail application. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 18-03-2026 NSL To

1. The Inspector of Police, Hasthampatty Police Station, Salem District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

NSL 18-03-2026