Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Jai Ganesh Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Jai Ganesh vs The State of Tamilnadu

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 03, 2026
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1663217

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CRL OP(MD)/13245/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jai Ganesh

Respondent

The State of Tamilnadu

Excerpt

.....296(b), 329(4), 351(3), 75(2) of bns, 2023, and section 4 of tnpwh act, in crime no.334 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2.the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and attempted to molest her. hence, the case has been registered and the petitioner was arrested. 3.the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that due to wordy quarrel between the party, a false case been foisted against the petitioner. he is ready to cooperate with investigation. the petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.05.2026. hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.4. the learned counsel for state of tn (crl. side) appearing for therespondent reiterated the prosecution and submitted that the petitioner outraged the modesty of the defacto complainant and attempted to molest her. hence, the petitioner was arrested. he would further submit that the investigation is still pending, the offences are grave in nature and the petitioner is having one previous case of tnppdl act. 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 counselon either side and the nature of offences levelled against the petitioner and considering the period of incarceration and though the petitioner has one previous case, i am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:[a] accordingly, this petition is ordered and 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 judicial magistrate, ambasamudram, and on further conditions that:[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as.....

Full Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 03/07/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Jai Ganesh, S/o.Murugan, Street, Odaikarai Thulakapatti, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District.. ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep By, The Inspector of Police, Papakudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District. Cr.No.334 of 2026.. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.Veera Raghul, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- C-33B.For Bail in Cr.No.334 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

The petitioner/Sole Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 26.05.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 329(4), 351(3), 75(2) of BNS, 2023, and Section 4 of TNPWH Act, in Crime No.334 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2.The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and attempted to molest her. Hence, the case has been registered and the petitioner was arrested. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that due to wordy quarrel between the party, a false case been foisted against the petitioner. He is ready to cooperate with investigation. The petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.05.2026. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side) appearing for the

respondent reiterated the prosecution and submitted that the petitioner outraged the modesty of the defacto complainant and attempted to molest her. Hence, the petitioner was arrested. He would further submit that the investigation is still pending, the offences are grave in nature and the petitioner is having one previous case of TNPPDL Act. 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 and the nature of offences levelled against the petitioner and considering the period of incarceration and though the petitioner has one previous case, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, this petition is ordered and 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 Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation. [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which 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 5560]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

(K R S J) 03.07.2026 VSG TO 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram.

2. The Superintendent, Palayamkottai Central Prison,Tirunelveli. 3.The Inspector of Police, Papakudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. K. RAJASEKAR,J., vsg

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.13245 of 2026 Date : 03/07/2026

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial