K.Mani @ Manikandan v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN K.Mani @ Manikandan ..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep by, The Inspector of Police Abiramapuram Police Station, Chennai District.

..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Spl.S.C.No.336 of 2023 on the file of the Learned XVII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

Mr. R.Rajprabhu For Respondent(s):

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

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.08.2025 following the execution of a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) issued by the Trial Court for alleged offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in Crime No.759 of 2021 on the file

of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner during the trial proceedings, the petitioner failed to appear before the Court on 23.07.2025, leading to the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant, which was subsequently executed by the respondent police on 20.08.2025. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already been under judicial custody for a prolonged duration. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner's non-appearance before the Trial Court on 23.07.2025 was neither willful nor intentional, but purely due to his severe ill-health conditions which prevented him from attending the Court proceedings. Asserting that the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the trial and abide by any conditions, the counsel prayed for the grant of bail.

4. The said contention was strongly opposed by the learned Government Counsel (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent. He submitted that the

petitioner is a habitual offender with as many as 15 previous cases of serious nature recorded against him. He further contended that the trial is at an advanced stage, wherein nearly 16 prosecution witnesses have already been examined and a considerable portion of the trial stands completed. The learned Government Counsel emphasized that if the petitioner is released on bail at this juncture, there is an imminent danger that he will abscond, tamper with the remaining witnesses, and indefinitely stall the conclusion of the murder trial.

5. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the gravity of the offence involving murder and destruction of evidence, and the past conduct of the petitioner, this Court finds no reason to entertain this application. The record explicitly reveals that the trial has reached a mature stage with 16 witnesses already examined, and the petitioner has demonstrated a clear tendency to impede justice by failing to appear, necessitating the execution of an NBW. Furthermore, the petitioner's heavy criminal track record of previous antecedents indicates a strong risk of recidivism. Releasing the petitioner when the trial is nearing completion would highly jeopardize the process and layout a strong probability of him absconding again. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 10-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Jeni To 1.The XVII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. 2.The Superintendent, Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai. 3.The Inspector of Police, Abiramapuram Police Station, Chennai District. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

Jeni 10-06-2026