Richard Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Richard vs The State of Tamilnadu

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 01, 2026

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1662032

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/1662032
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar
Decided On: Jul 01, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP(MD)/12900/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Richard

Respondent

The State of Tamilnadu

Excerpt

.....if the petitioner was released on bail this time, again there is likelihood of jumping out bail. hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.5. this court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.6. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, considering thestage of the case, now the charges were framed and the case is posted for examination of witnesses and also considering the period of incarceration, i am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions. [a] accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of rs.15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned district and sessions judge, communal clash cases court, madurai, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the learned district and sessions judge, communal clash cases court, madurai, at 10.30 a.m., on all working days, for a period of three weeks, thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to theoffence 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 anyinducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the factsof 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 51730]. [g] if the.....

Full Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 01.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD). No. 12900 of 2026 Richard ...Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, NIB CID, Theni, Theni District. (Crime No.43 of 2021) ...Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.B.Isac Camilus Advocate For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 43 of 2021 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 07.04.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29(1) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.43 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found in

possession of 2.750 kilograms of ganja. Hence, the case. Earlier the petitioner was arrested and released on bail. Subsequently, he was faced trial in C.C.No. 596 of 2022 on the file of the Special Court for Communal Clash Cases, Madurai. In the meantime, on 25.09.2025, he jumped out bail and hence, Non Bailable Warrant was issued against the petitioner and the same was executed on 07.04.2026 and now he is in judicial custody.

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. He would further submit that due to some ailments, he was not able to appear before the trial Court. He is in custody from 07.04.2026 and ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the State reiterated the prosecution case and reported that the NBW was issued on 25.09.2025, after 7 months only, it was executed. If the petitioner was released on bail this time, again there is likelihood of jumping out bail. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

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

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the

stage of the case, now the charges were framed and the case is posted for examination of witnesses and also considering the period of incarceration, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions. [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned District and sessions Judge, Communal Clash Cases Court, Madurai, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the learned District and sessions Judge, Communal Clash Cases Court, Madurai, at 10.30 a.m., on all working days, for a period of three weeks, 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 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 51730]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS. (K R S J) 01.07.2026 TM To 1.The District and sessions Judge, Communal Clash Cases Court, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, NIB CID, Theni, Theni District. (Crime No.43 of 2021) 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 12900 of 2026 Date : 01.07.2026

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties Richard vs The State of Tamilnadu Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar