Shahul Hameed v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16.06.2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI Shahul Hameed, S/o.Mohammed Muzthafa

...Petitioner/Accused No.1

Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town South Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.166 of 2023) ... Respondent/ Complainant For Petitioner :

Mr.M.Suresh, Advocate.

For Respondent :

Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS, 2023. PRAYER :- For Bail in connection with S.C.No.73 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Court at Dindigul in Crime No.166 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police.

1/4

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.04.2025. The petitioner was facing trial before the learned Additional District and Sessions Court at Dindigul in S.C.No.73 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in Crime No.166 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. Due to the non-appearance of the petitioner on 26.03.2025, a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued against him by the trial court. Thereafter, the petitioner was produced in this case on 09.04.2025 under a P.T. Warrant and was formally remanded on the same day.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner is in custody from 09.04.2025. Hence, he seeks bail.

2/4

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the petitioner has already been detained under the Goondas Act and is currently in custody. He would further submit that there are eight previous cases against the petitioner including two murder cases. He, therefore, opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner.

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

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner, and also considering the previous cases against the petitioner and also taking note that the petitioner has already been detained under Act 14 of 1982, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 16/06/2025 / TRUE COPY / /06/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. I / II / III / IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

3/4

PAL TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DINDIGUL TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT 2 THE OFFICER INCHARGE DISTRICT PRISON, DINDIGUL.

3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.9458 of 2025 Date :16/06/2025 SS/SAR- /30/06/2025/ 4P/4C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4