Mangi Lal v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Samayapuram

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 20.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 6963 of 2026 Mangi Lal

...Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Samayapuram Police Station, Tiruchirappalli District.

(Crime No.427 of 2025)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.SMA.Jinnah Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 427 of 2025 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 23.09.2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 310(2), 61(2), 3(5) of BNS r/w. Section 25(1B)(A) Arms Act, in Crime No.427 of 2025 1/6

on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has committed decoity of 10 kgs. of gold jewels. More than 10 kgs. of gold jewels have been recovered. Hence, the case has been registered.

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. The petitioner is not present in the scene of occurrence. There is no specific overt act against the petitioner. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the offence are grave in nature. Some of the accused gave the information to others as the defacto complainant came by car with huge quantity of gold jewels. The petitioner along with other accused intercepted the car in the highways and by applying chilli powder in the face of driver and robbed about 10 kgs. of gold jewels. Country made Bomb and Rs.6,00,500/- were recovered from this petitioner. Already A1, A9 to A12 were granted bail. investigation has been completed and charge sheet also has been filed and the 2/6

case is pending for trial in S.C.No.9 of 2026 for framing charges on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli. 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 the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner, even as per the FIR 4 persons were involved in this case and the petitioner is not named accused in this case, already A1, A9 to A12 were granted bail, investigation has been completed and charge sheet also has been filed and the case is pending for trial in S.C.No.9 of 2026 for framing charges, only based on the confession statement of the co-accused, this petitioner has been implicated in this case, some of the properties were recovered in this case and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner from 23.09.2025, 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 3/6

Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned III Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the III Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, 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 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 4/6

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) 20.04.2026 TM To 1.The III Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli. 2.The Inspector of Police, Samayapuram Police Station, Tiruchirappalli District.

(Crime No.427 of 2025) 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 6963 of 2026 Date : 20.04.2026 6/6