Arul David v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

1. Arul David

2. Jesudoss

3. Manikandan

4. Sankar ... Petitioners/Accused Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep., By the Inspector of Police, Swamimalai Police Station, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District (Crime No. 211 of 2026).

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.R.Ilayaraja For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/7

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No. 211 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners / Accused, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.06.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 110, 288, 111(2) of BNS r/w Sections 9(B)(1)(a), 9(B)(1)(b) of Indian Explosives Act in Crime No. 211 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.06.2026 on getting secret information, the respondent conducted a raid at a shed near Kollidam River Bank at Thiruppurambiyam and the accused persons have allegedly manufactured and stored the explosive articles without proper license and the police have seized the explosive articles, explosive substances, raw materials, firecrackers, fuse materials and weighing scale from the alleged premises. Hence, the case. 2/7

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioners have been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.06.2026. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the case has been registered against the accused persons for manufacturing and storing the explosive articles without proper license. The petitioners have 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 petitioners.

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

3/7

6.Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the nature of the offence and the fact that nobody injured in this case and further considering the fact that though the petitioners have previous cases to their credit, they have already been granted bail in those cases, as well as taking into account of the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kumbakonam, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of thirty days, thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

[c] the petitioners shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which they are suspected;

4/7

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioners 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 them 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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) 22.06.2026 PNM 5/7

TO

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kumbakonam.

2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.

3. The State of Tamilnadu Rep., By, the Inspector of Police, Swamimalai Police Station, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

6/7

P. DHANABAL,J PNM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11858 of 2026 Date : 22/06/2026 7/7