John Vivek v. The State Of Tamilnadu Through The

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL John Vivek ... Petitioner/Accused Vs The State of Tamilnadu Through, The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town South Police Station, Dindigul District Cr.No.85/2018.

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.M.Suresh, For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No132 of 2024 .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 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 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 2/7

NBW was issued. This is the second petition for bail. The petitioner has got suspension of sentence, in which, he was convicted. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that due to non-appearance, the NonBailable Warrant was issued against the petitioner. He would further submit that he is a history sheeted rowdy and if the petitioner released on bail, he may abscond, which would affect the trial. 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, nature of offence, and considering the fact that already the petitioner was convicted in another case and also he got an order of suspension of sentence before this case and in this case, only one witness has to be examined and also considering the fact that though the 3/7

petitioner has previous cases including 302 IPC to his credit, the petitioner has got bail in the previous cases registered against him as well as considering the long 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 Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the trial Court, daily at 10.30 a.m., and 05.00p.m., until further orders. [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;

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

[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make 4/7

any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him 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) 25.06.2026 PNM 5/7

TO

1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul

3. The Superintendent, District Prison, Dindigul

3. The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town South Police Station, Dindigul 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.12337 of 2026 Date : 25/06/2026 7/7