Mohanram Vs The State Rep. by

Mohanram vs The State Rep. by

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jun 16, 2026

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1472592

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/1472592
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan
Decided On: Jun 16, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/15158/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mohanram

Respondent

The State Rep. by

Excerpt

.....grant of bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and, on instructions, submitted that the stolen property has already been recovered and that a major portion of the investigation has already been completed.5. considering the above facts and circumstances, particularly the periodof incarceration undergone by the petitioner, the fact that the stolen property has been recovered, the fact that the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 21.05.2026 passed in crl.o.p.no.13513 of 2026, and also the fact that a major portion of the investigation has already been completed, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.6. accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on theirexecuting 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, villupuram, and subject to the following conditions: [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 respondent police everday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders; [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned magistrate/trial court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned magistrate/trial court itself, as laid down by the hon'ble supreme court in p.k.shaji vs.state of kerala [(2005)13 scc 283]; [f] if the petitioner.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.06.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Mohanram ... Petitioner(s) Vs.
The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Villupuram Town Police Station ... Respondent(s) Crime No.65 of 2026 PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in Crime No.65 of 2026 pending on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s) : Mr.S.Deepak Raj For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.05.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 238, 310(2), 310(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.65 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that, on 03.03.2026, the

petitioner, along with the other accused persons, formed an unlawful assembly, committed dacoity, and stole 4.106 kilograms of gold and a sum of Rs.5,50,000/-. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner

is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 21.05.2026 passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.13513 of 2026, and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the

respondent, while opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and, on instructions, submitted that the stolen property has already been recovered and that a major portion of the investigation has already been completed.

5. Considering the above facts and circumstances, particularly the period

of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, the fact that the stolen property has been recovered, the fact that the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 21.05.2026 passed in Crl.O.P.No.13513 of 2026, and also the fact that a major portion of the investigation has already been completed, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on their

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, Villupuram, and subject to the following conditions: [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 respondent police everday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders; [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs.

State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283]; [f] if the petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 16.06.2026 skr 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 learned Judicial Magistrate I, Villupuram

2. The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Vedampattu, Villupuram

3. The Inspector of Police, Villupuram Town Police Station

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

skr 16.06.2026

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties Mohanram vs The State Rep. by Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan