John Vivek v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Dindigul

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 05.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 10215 of 2026 John Vivek

...Petitioner

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

(Crime No.85 of 2018)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Suresh Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 85 of 2018 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 27.09.2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302, 506(ii), 120(b), 109, 149 of IPC, in Crime No.85 of 2018 on the file 1/5

of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The petitioner has committed the above said offences. After completing the investigation charge sheet has been filed before the concerned Court. While committal proceedings in P.R.C.No.32 of 2018 the petitioner was absence and NBW was issued on 29.07.2024 and the petitioner was formally arrested through PT warrant on 27.09.2024. Now the case is pending in S.C.No. 132 of 2024 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul.

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 was already arrested in various case. Only due non production of the accused by the concerned police officials only the NBW was issued. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the accused was a convicted accused. He was convicted in another case and suspension of sentence petition is pending before the appellate Court. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. 2/5

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 and considering that according to the petitioner, while he was in custody in another case, he was unable to appear before the trial Court in this case, thereby NBW was issued and the same was executed on 27.09.2024, but, according to the prosecution, the petitioner is a life convict and now he is undergoing the sentence for the past 20 months, now not even sentence has been suspended by the appellate Court, this Court is of the view that it is not appropriate to consider this bail application at this stage. This petition is liable to be dismissed.

7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. (P D B J) 05.06.2026 TM 3/5

To 1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul. 2.The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town South Police Station, Dindigul District. (Crime No.85 of 2018) 3.The Superintendent, District Prison, Dindigul. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 10215 of 2025 Date : 05.06.2026 5/5