Logesh v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 04/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Logesh ... Petitioner/Accused Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Thadicombu Police Station, Dindigul District.
(Crime No.161 of 2026).
... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arjun For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No. 161 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police.
1/7
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.05.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(2) of BNS Act, 5 of TNPPDL Act in Crime No. 161 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.05.2026 at about 11.30 p.m., near Thadikombu Jio Petrol Bunk, the accused persons wrongfully confined the bus drove by the defacto complainant, who is the Driver of Karnataka Government Transport Corporation along with the Conductor and abused the defacto complainant with filthy language and pelted stones on the front glass and pulled the wiper of the Bus, thereby, caused damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. 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 it is alleged that the 2/7
occurrence took place on 03.05.2026, but the FIR was registered only on 06.05.2026. The petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.05.2026. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the case has been registered against the accused persons. The petitioner has previous cases. 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. 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, the nature of the offence and the fact that, according to the FIR, the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 03.05.2026 at Thadikombu, whereas the complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant only on 06.05.2026 after returning from Bangalore 3/7
to Madurai, which indicates a delay in the registration of the FIR and further considering the fact that though the petitioner has previous cases to his credit, he has already been granted bail in those cases, as well as 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, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and 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 Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police at 10.30 a.m., for a period of thirty days and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.
[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;
4/7
[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) 04.06.2026 PNM 5/7
TO
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul
2. Do-Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindugal District.
3. The Superintendent, District Jail, Dindigul.
4. The State of Tamilnadu, Thadicombu Police Station, Dindigul District.
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
P. DHANABAL,J PNM
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.10155 of 2026 Date : 04/06/2026 7/7