Balamurugan v. The State Rep By, Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.07.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Balamurugan ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Taluk Police Station, Krishnagiri.

(Crime No.405 of 2018) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with C.C.No.147 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Krishnagiri.

For Petitioner :

Mr.A.Sivapandi For Respondent :

Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner/A1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.02.2025 pursuant to a non-bailable warrant issued in C.C.No.147 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Krishnagiri, in connection with Crime 1/4

No.405 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Section 392 of IPC, seeks bail.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/A1 is facing trial in C.C.No.147 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Krishnagiri and due to his health related issues, he was unable to appear before the trial Court, thereby, the trial Court had issued a non-bailable warrant against him. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for the grant of bail to the petitioner.

3. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent opposed for granting bail to the petitioner stating that the trial in the present case is pending from the year 2018 and since the non bailable warrants were pending against both the petitioner and the second accused, there is no progress in the trial proceedings. He further submitted that after a period of five years, the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner was executed through PT warrant on 07.03.2025. He also submitted that the second accused is yet to be secured and further, in respect of the petitioner, 20 previous cases are pending. 2/4

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), taking note of the antecedents of the petitioner and also considering that the second accused is still absconding, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 28.07.2025 ham To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Krishnagiri.

2. The Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Taluk Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3/4

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

ham 28.07.2025 4/4