Raj @ Raju v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Sattur Town

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 01.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 6318 of 2026 Raj @ Raju ... Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Sattur Town Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No.162 of 2011)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karuppasamypandiyan Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 162 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 10.03.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 457,397 and 411 of IPC, in Crime No.162 of 2011, on the file of the respondent police, in 1/6

S.C.No.447 of 2025 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that originally the FIR was registered in the year 2011. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed and the trial was commenced in S.C.No.447 of 2025 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur. Pending trial the petitioner was absconding. Pending committal proceedings, the accused was absconding. Hence, the learned Judicial magistrate No.II, Sattur, Virudhunagar District, issued Non Bailable Warrant against the petitioner. The same was executed and the accused was arrested and remanded into judicial custody on 10.03.2026.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was already arrested and released on bail. Since the petitioner lost the contact details of his Advocate, he is unable to contact him. Coaccused in this case was released on bail. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent 2/6

would submit that the petitioner along with other accused committed masked robbery. Since some of the accused were absconding, the case was split up against the co-accused namely A6 and trial was conducted and he was convicted and imposed 10 years of Rigorous imprisonment. The occurrence is of the year 2011. The petitioner was absconding more than 12 years. After framing charge A7 died. A2, A3 and A5 are still in custody. At the knife point, they robbed 60 soverigns of gold jewels from the defacto complainant. Only 15 soverigns were recovered. Now the case is pending before the Sessions Court with regard to the remaining accused including this petitioner. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, considering that already the petitioner was released on bail, thereafter, only due to non appearance of the petitioner, the non bailable warrant was issued and the same was executed and from 10.03.2026 the petitioner is in custody, the occurrence took place in the year 2011 and the case 3/6

is pending for more than 15 years and also similarly placed person was granted bail and also considering that the case is posted for trial, 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 Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the trial Court daily at 10.30 a.m., on all working days 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 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 4/6

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) 01.04.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur.

2.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur. 3.The Inspector of Police, Sattur Town Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No.162 of 2011) 4.The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Virudhunagar. 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 6318 of 2026 Date : 01.04.2026 6/6