Sampath v. The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Sampath

2. Seenivasan ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Singarapettai Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

(Crime No.65 of 2003) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to release the petitioners on bail in S.C.No.155 of 2014 on the file of the learned Subordinate Court, Uthangarai. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.04.2026 for the alleged offences under Section 397 of IPC, in Crime No.65 of 2003 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the First Information Report was registered in the year 2003, and the charge against the petitioner is restricted to the theft of a single watch. It is the specific submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Non Bailable Warrant was issued against the petitioners on 04.12.2024 and the same was executed on 08.04.2026. He further submitted that the petitioners are suffering from incarceration for the past 55 days and hence, they seek for grant of bail. 3.

At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) strongly opposed the said contention, submitting that there are five accused in total, with the petitioners arrayed as A4 and A5. A separate trial was conducted against the co-accused, resulting in their acquittal. This factum clearly demonstrates that the petitioners remained absent during the regular trial, which necessitated the trial court to split the case and proceed against the others. 4.

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

5.

As rightly contended the learned Government Advocate, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there is every possibility that they will cause further delay in a matter arising from a crime registered in the year 2003. Consequently, this Court is of the firm view that this is not an appropriate stage

to enlarge the petitioners on bail. However, this Court expects the learned trial Judge to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated six months, the petitioners are at liberty to renew their bail application.

6.

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 02-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order VKR To 1.The Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai.

2.The Superintendent, Virudhunagar Jail.

3.The Inspector of Police, Singarapettai Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

VKR 02-06-2026