J.P.Jobin @ J.P Jubin v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 10.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 10699 of 2026 J.P.Jobin @ J.P.Jubin

...Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Marthandam Police Station, Kanniyakumari District.

(Crime No.90 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Anto Prince 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. 90 of 2026 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 18.05.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 329(4), 296(b), 115(2), 351(3) of BNS and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL 1/6

Act, in Crime No.90 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.02.2026, at 12.20 a.m, five unknown persons were standing on the backside of the Church with deadly weapons and threatened the defacto complainant and his men, abused them attempted to assault them, damaged the Bolero Vehicle which was parked therein 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. The petitioner has no nexus with this case. His name was not found in the FIR. Only on suspicion the petitioner was arrested in this case. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the offence are grave in nature. The accused persons gathered together with deadly weapons and attempted to assault the defacto complainant and also caused damages to the Bolero Car to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. The injured was discharged from the hospital. The petitioner has one previous case. He vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. 2/6

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, the injured was discharged from the hospital, though the petitioner has one previous case, already he was granted bail in that case also, and considering 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, 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.I, Kuzhithurai, Kanniyakumari District, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of thirty days, 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 3/6

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 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) 10.06.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, Kanniyakumari District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Marthandam Police Station, Kanniyakumari District. (Crime No.90 of 2026) 4/6

3.The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Nagercoil, Kanniyakumari District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 10699 of 2026 Date : 10.06.2026 6/6