G.Yogarani v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Peraiyur
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 08.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL G.Yogarani
...Petitioner/Accused
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Peraiyur Police Station Madurai (Crime No. 33 of 2026 )
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivaprakash Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervenor : Mr.R.Narendran PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 33 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/7
The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 02.03.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 331(3), 305(a) and 49 of BNS, 2023 in Crime No. 33 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.12.2025, the defacto complainant found that the gold jewelleries weighing 159 grams, a sum of Rs.50,000/- and her mother's passport was missing. Based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, a case was registered on 25.02.2026 and the petitioner has been arrayed as accused. Hence the case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that he has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 02.03.2026. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner. 2/7
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the case has been registered under Sections 331(3), 305(a) and 49 of BNS, 2023 in Crime No. 33 of 2026. He would further submit that A1 and A2 were arrested and still in custody and A3 is still absconding and out of 20 sovereigns of gold, only 13 sovereings were recovered. He would further submit that the petitioner has no previous case. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature and hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the intervenor reiterated the arguments made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and would further submit that the petitioner and other accused pledged some jewels and availed loan and if the petitioner is released on bail, she will redeem the same and repledge somewhere else. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
6. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available 3/7
on record.
7. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, nature of offence, and considering the facts that a part of the property was recovered and the petitioner has no previous case and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:
[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur, Madurai, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders; [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she is accused, or suspected, or of the 4/7
commission of which he/she is suspected;
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].
[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.
(P D B J) 08.04.2026 apd 5/7
To 1.The Principal Sessions Court for District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur, Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Peraiyur Police Station Madurai.
3. The Superintendent, Central Jail (Women Prison), Madurai. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
P. DHANABAL, J apd
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 6507 of 2026 Date : 08.04.2026 (2/2) 7/7