B.J.Gogai v. State Rep.By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN B.J.Gogai ..Petitioner Vs State Rep by The Inspector of Police Arakkonam Town Police Station, Ranipet District.

(Crime No. 525 of 1994) ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in Crime No.525 of 1994 on the file of respondent.

For Petitioner:

Mr.Vinoth Kanna For Respondent:

Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.04.2025 for the alleged offence under Section 174 of CRPC altered to

Section 302 r/w 120B of IPC in Crime No.525 of 1994 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.03.1994, wife of A1 was found dead suffering from burning wounds. The same has been reported to the respondent herein by one Barick, Lieutenant Commanding Officer. Initially, FIR was registered under 174 Cr.PC subsequently, altered to 302 r/w 120B of IPC.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 1994 and in furtherance thereof the petitioner has been in judicial custody from 18.04.2025. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the Petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 1994 and in furtherance thereof the petitioner has been in judicial custody from 18.04.2025. The petitioner is 64 years old and almost for one year, he has been in prison and no progress has taken place in trial. With very great difficulty, the petitioner has been secured after a period of 20 years. Therefore, if at all the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it would become very difficult to proceed with the trial. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case; taking note of the submission made by the learned Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu; the said contention cannot be rejected and it is well merited. Hence, this Court is of the firm view that it is not appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this Stage.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 05-06-2026 SHL To

1. The Inspector of Police Arakkonam Town Police Station, Ranipet District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

SHL 05-06-2026