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.

Monish vs the State Rep, by. the Inspector of Police

Monish vs The State Rep, by. the Inspector of Police

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 26, 2025
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1802097

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/5238/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Monish

Respondent

The State Rep, by. the Inspector of Police

Excerpt

.....remanded to judicial custody on 08.02.2025, seeking bail in crime no.1558 of 2024 registered for the offence under section 303(2) of bns. 2.it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had committed theft of two-wheeler belonging to the defacto complainant. hence, the case. 3.the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations are false and that the property has been recovered and that the petitioner has been in custody from 08.02.2025 and hence further custody of the petitioner is not required and prayed for the grant of bail. 4.per contra, the learned government advocate (crl. side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the property has been recovered. page no.2 of 6 5.heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned government advocate (crl. side) for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record. 6.considering the nature of allegations, period of incarceration, the fact that the property has been recovered and since further custody of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions:7.accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing 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 xv metropolitan magistrate, gt, chennai, and on further conditions that: [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the magistrate may obtain a copy of their aadhar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;page no.3 of 6[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] on breach of any of the aforesaid.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 26.02.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P.No.5238 of 2025 Monish ...Petitioner/Accused Vs. State rep by The Inspector of Police, H5, New Washermenpet Police Station, Chennai. ... Respondent PRAYER: This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.1558 of 2024 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Ezhilbalaji For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Page No.1 of 6

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.02.2025, seeking bail in Crime No.1558 of 2024 registered for the offence under Section 303(2) of BNS. 2.It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had committed theft of two-wheeler belonging to the defacto complainant. Hence, the case. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations are false and that the property has been recovered and that the petitioner has been in custody from 08.02.2025 and hence further custody of the petitioner is not required and prayed for the grant of bail. 4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the property has been recovered. Page No.2 of 6 5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record. 6.Considering the nature of allegations, period of incarceration, the fact that the property has been recovered and since further custody of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions:

7.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing 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 XV Metropolitan Magistrate, GT, Chennai, and on further conditions that: [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

Page No.3 of 6

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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]; [f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

26.02.2025 ata Page No.4 of 6 Copy to: 1.The Inspector of Police, H5, New Washermenpet Police Station, Chennai. 2.XV Metropolitan Magistrate, GT, Chennai. 3.Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Page No.5 of 6

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

ata Crl.O.P.No.5238 of 2025 26.02.2025 Page No.6 of 6

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial