Madras High Court reaffirms the P.K. Shaji framework, granting interim bail with conditions under BNSS 2023 for a Section 25(1)(a) Arms Act offence, offering persuasive guidance for future criminal bail petitions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Crl.O.P.No.23544 of 2025 of Rajkumar Vs The State by Inspector of Police |
| CNR | HCMA011870482025 |
| Decision Date | 25-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | GRANTED |
| Judgment Author | Honourable Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran |
| Court | High Court of Judicature at Madras |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure – Bail under Section 483, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (Arms Act offences) |
| Questions of Law | Whether bail under Section 483 BNSS 2023 can be granted for an Arms Act offence when a co-accused remains absconding? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that even in cases under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, bail may be granted under Section 483 BNSS 2023 after balancing liberty and public interest. The court applied the Supreme Court’s decision in P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala to empower the trial court to enforce conditions as if it had released the accused itself. Mere absconsion of a co-accused does not automatically justify continued detention if the applicant enjoys a presumption of innocence and no other exceptional circumstances are shown. Bail was granted subject to monetary sureties, identity verification of sureties, daily police reporting, and a warning that breach would invoke P.K. Shaji consequences and potentially a fresh FIR under Section 269 BNSS. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala, (2005) 13 SCC 283 |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner was arrested on 01-08-2025 in Crime No. 147 of 2025 under Section 25(1)(a) Arms Act, 1959, after a country-made gun was recovered from his cattle shed. He moved this petition under Section 483 BNSS 2023 seeking bail. The prosecution opposed bail on the ground that a co-accused, Devaprabhu, was still absconding. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Follows | P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala, (2005) 13 SCC 283 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Even when a co-accused remains absconding, a bail application under Section 483 BNSS can succeed if no exceptional circumstances tie the applicant to flight risk.
- The High Court emphasised that personal liberty must be balanced with public interest, applying P.K. Shaji to empower trial courts to impose and enforce conditions.
- Strict surety identification procedures (photograph, thumb impression, ID proof) and daily police reporting can satisfy the court’s concerns on compliance.
- Breach of conditions allows invocation of P.K. Shaji to cancel bail without fresh hearing and may even attract a fresh FIR under Section 269 BNSS.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner was arrested for an Arms Act offence under Section 25(1)(a) and sought bail under Section 483 BNSS 2023.
- The prosecution’s sole objection was that a co-accused remained absconding, justifying custodial retention.
- The court weighed the presumption of innocence and personal liberty against the prosecution’s limited public interest argument.
- Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in P.K. Shaji to permit the trial court to enforce bail conditions as though it had granted bail directly.
- Bail was granted with monetary bonds, verified sureties, daily reporting, and explicit warning that any breach would lead to immediate bail cancellation and possible fresh FIR.
Arguments by the Parties
Respondent (State):
Co-accused Devaprabhu is absconding; ongoing custody of the petitioner is necessary to secure trial processes.
Factual Background
Rajkumar was arrested on 01 August 2025 in Ranipet District (Crime No. 147/2025) for possession of a country-made firearm under Section 25(1)(a) Arms Act, 1959, following a search of his cattle shed. He filed a petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking bail. The prosecution opposed bail on the ground that a co-accused remained at large. The High Court granted bail with conditions, applying the framework of P.K. Shaji.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court reaffirmed and applied the Supreme Court’s P.K. Shaji principle.
Citations
- P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala, (2005) 13 SCC 283
- Crl.O.P.No.23544 of 2025 (Madras High Court, 25 August 2025)
- Crime No. 147 of 2025 (Rathinagiri Police Station, Ranipet District)