Umamaheswari v. The State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.31712 of 2025 Umamaheswari ... Petitioner Vs.

The State Rep by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, E.O.W. Tiruchirappalli.

(Crime No.1 of 2010) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on bail in Crime No.1 of 2010 pending on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner :

Mr.M.Selvam 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 03.11.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 407 & 420 of IPC 1/8

r/w Section 120(B) of IPC and under Section 5 of TNPID Act, in Crime No.1 of 2021, registered on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

2. The petitioner earlier was arrested and released on bail and subsequently, due to personal inconvenience, she could not attend the court, on 23.10.2025. Hence the court issued a non bailable warrant on 23.10.2025. Thereafter, the respondent police arrested the petitioner and remanded her to Judicial custody. The charges have been framed and the case is posted for trial.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner being a lady, having children depending on her and that she was absent only for one day and immediately, thereafter she was arrested. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that the trial Court has elaborately considered the bail application, the conduct of the 2/8

petitioner as regards her absence and attempted to delay the trial process. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. I have also gone through the order and consider the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the petitioner being a lady and in this case, the charges were also framed and trial Court has fixed the trial date, hence, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Court under TNPID Act, Chennai, and on further conditions that: [a] the sureties shall affix her photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their 3/8

identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

[c] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court herself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[d] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

20.11.2025 kmm 4/8

5/8

To

1. The Special Court under TNPID Act, Chennai

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, E.O.W. Tiruchirappalli.

3. Central Women Prison, Puzhal.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

6/8

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

kmm Crl.O.P.No.31712 of 2025 7/8

20.11.2025 8/8