Gopinath @ Gopi v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.29842 of 2025 Gopinath @ Gopi ... Petitioner Vs.
State represented by The Inspector of Police, C3, Seven Wells Police Station, Chennai.
... Respondent (Cr.No.104 of 2023) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in S.C.No.203 of 2024 on the file of the XVII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai in Cr.No.104 of 2023. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Ezhil Balaji For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
O R D E R
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.10.2025 for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 392 r/w 397, 1/5
506(ii) and 342 r/w 34, 506(i) of IPC in S.C.No.203 of 2024 on the file of the XVII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai in connection with Cr.No.104 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to the non-appearance of the petitioner before the XVII Additional District and Sessions Court, Chennai, on 19.09.2025, a Non-Bailable Warrant was issued and executed on 17.10.2025. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that although a Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against the petitioner on 19.09.2025, he was secured within a period of one month. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to participate in the trial proceedings without fail. Due to his ill health, he was unable to appear before the trial court, and therefore, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, reported that the petitioner regularly appears 2/5
before the Court, but this is the fourth occasion he has absconded. The trial court has also recorded all previous conduct of the petitioner. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. I have also gone through the order passed by the Sessions Court, which reveals that the petitioner has a habit of regularly jumping bail, surrendering, and then reappearing. It is also stated that the petitioner has two previous cases. The present case is posted for 10.11.2025; he is ranked as A3, and the trial has not progressed.
7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has three previous cases, has been irregular in appearing before the trial court on all hearing dates, and this is the fourth occasion on which a Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against him. In view of this, if bail is granted, there is a likelihood that he may hamper with the trial process. Hence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 3/5
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 03.11.2025 Vv To
1. The XVII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai
2. The Inspector of Police, C3, Seven Wells Police Station, Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
4/5
K.RAJASEKAR , J.
Vv Crl.O.P.No.29842 of 2025 03.11.2025 5/5