Ragul Vs State rep by

Ragul vs State rep by

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 06, 2026

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1421621

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1421621
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar
Decided On: Feb 06, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/2816/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ragul

Respondent

State rep by

Excerpt

.....petitioner subject to the following conditions:5. accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on hisexecuting a bond for a sum of rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned judicial magistrate-i, nagapattinam, nagapattinam district and on further conditions that: [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship [judicial form no.46 annexed to 'the criminal rules of practice, 2019']. the learned magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioner shall report before the learned judicial magistrate-i on all working days at 10.30 a.m for a period of four weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;[c] the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; [d] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de facto complainant and witnesses; [e] the petitioner to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he shall comply to the directions as may be given by the court in this regard; [f] on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned magistrate/trial court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail bythe learned magistrate/trial court himself as laid down by the hon'ble supreme court in p.k.shaji vs. state of kerala [(2005)13 scc 283]; [g] if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh fir can be registered under section 269 of b.n.s. 06.02.2026 vv note :1. registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the official website of this court.2. all concerned to act on this orderbeing uploaded in official.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.2816 of 2026 Ragul ... Petitioner Vs. State rep by The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch (DCB) Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District. ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.3 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.A.J.Mohamed Kassim For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The allegations against the petitioner is that earlier he was facing prosecution for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC . He was regularly appearing before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District in C.C.No.587 of 2021 and he has not appeared before the Court on 20.08.2025, which resulted in issuance of non bailable warrant and it was executed on 05.11.2025.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

was unable to appear before the Trial Court, due to ill health. As a result of which, Non Bailable Warrant was issued on 20.08.2025. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody from 05.11.2025 i.e., for nearly 90 days Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner. 3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the

respondent reiterated the prosecution case and based on the trial court order

submitted that in the trial court order, it has elaborately discussed about the way in which the petitioner has absconded and if the petitioner is released on bail, there is a likelihood that he will not appear before the trial court and hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. However, on perusal of the order as well as the connected materials, I am of the view that this petitioner is entitled for bail and accordingly bail is granted to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

5. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his

executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District and on further conditions that: [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioner shall report before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I on all working days at 10.30 a.m for a period of four weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[c] the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; [d] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de facto complainant and witnesses; [e] the petitioner to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard; [f] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned 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)13 SCC 283]; [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 06.02.2026 Vv Note :

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

2. All concerned to act on this order

being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code. To

1. The Judicial Magistrate-I, Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District.

2. TheThe Inspector of Police District Crime Branch (DCB) Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District.

3. The Nagapattinam jail, Nagapattinam District. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

Vv Crl.O.P.No2816 of 2026 06.02.2026

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties Ragul vs State rep by Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar