Mathan Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Mathan vs The State of Tamilnadu

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 03, 2026

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1663374

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/1663374
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar
Decided On: Jul 03, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP(MD)/13284/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mathan

Respondent

The State of Tamilnadu

Excerpt

.....the property was recovered. the petitioner has totally 6 prevopis cases. investigation is still pending. 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 thenature of offence, co-accused in this case has been released on bail, the property has been recovered, though the petitioner has 6 previous cases, all the cases were registered on the same allegation and within short span of time 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 judicial magistrate, sivagiri, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., 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 investigationor 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.....

Full Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 03.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD). No. 13284 of 2026 Mathan ...Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Puliyankudi Police Station, Tenkasi District. (Crime No.262 of 2026) ...Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vikraman 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. 262 of 2026 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 03.06.2026, for the offences punishable under Section 303(2) of BNS, in Crime No.262 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner joining hands with other accused, has committed theft of 24 Amaraja Batteries from the Locker room near the tower situated at Thalaivankottai Panchayat. Hence, the case.

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 co-accused in this case has been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. Though the petitioner has some previous cases, all the cases were registered for the same offence, only on the basis of the confession statement made by the co-accused. The petitioner is in custody from 03.06.2026 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 property was recovered. The petitioner has totally 6 prevopis cases. Investigation is still pending. 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

nature of offence, co-accused in this case has been released on bail, the property has been recovered, though the petitioner has 6 previous cases, all the cases were registered on the same allegation and within short span of time 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 Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., 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) 03.07.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri. 2.The Inspector of Police, Puliyankudi Police Station, Tenkasi District. (Crime No.262 of 2026) 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 13284 of 2026 Date : 03.07.2026

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