Sarma @ Narayanasarma v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. byThe Inspector of Police
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 120(b), 427
- Explosives Substance Act, 1908 ss. 3, 5
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.02.2007, in a death anniversary, a discussion was held among the accused persons to do something against Muslin fundamentalist. Thereafter, they have agreed to blast boom at RSS office for the purpose of creating an aversion…
Judgment
Cause title
CRL OP(MD). No. 11780 of 2026BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )Date : 22.06.2026PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABALCRL OP(MD). No. 11780 of 2026 Sarma @ Narayanasarma ...Petitioner
/Accused No.3VsState of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Courtallam Police Station, Tenkasi District. (Crime No.107 of 2008) ...Respondent
/Complainant For Petitioner :Mr.P.T.Ramesh Raja Advocate. For Respondent :Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSSPRAYER :- to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest pending trial in S.C.No.05 of 2010 on the file of the Special Court for Communal Clash Cases, Madurai. 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No. 11780 of 2026
ORDER :
The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A3, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent pursuant to the Non-Bailable Warrant issued by the Special Court for Communal Clash Cases, Madurai in S.C.No.05 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Section 120(b) and 427 of IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosives Substance Act, 1908, seeks anticipatory bail.
The case of the prosecution is that on 17.02.2007, in a death anniversary, a discussion was held among the accused persons to do something against Muslin fundamentalist. Thereafter, they have agreed to blast boom at RSS office for the purpose of creating an aversion towards Muslim community, as planned booms were blasted and it caused damages worth about Rs.2,500/-. Hence, the case.2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No. 11780 of 20263. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was already released on bail and since the petitioner has not turned up for the hearing, Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) was ordered to be issued. He would further submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that the petitioner underwent grate trauma and lost his mental balance and hence, he could not appear before the Trial Court.
Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4. The learned Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side) fairly admits that already bail was granted to the petitioner and due to non-appearance, Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against the petitioner. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No. 11780 of 20265. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.6. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and considering the fact that already bail was granted to the petitioner and due to absence, Non-Bailable Warrant was issued and the same is pending, it is appropriate to direct the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court, where the NBW is pending and file an appropriate application for cancellation of NBW. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Trial Court, where the NBW is pending and file an appropriate application for cancellation of NBW within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of this order and to file an application for cancellation of Non-Bailable Warrant.
Operative part
If such application is 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No. 11780 of 2026filed, the Trial Court is directed to consider the same on the same day in accordance with law, on merits.8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. (P D B J) 22.06.2026vsg To1.The Special Court for Communal Clash Cases, Madurai. 2. The Inspector of Police, Courtallam Police Station, Tenkasi District.
The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No. 11780 of 2026 P. DHANABAL, J., vsg ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 11780 of 2026 Date : 22.06.20266/6
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 120(b), 427; Explosives Substance Act, 1908 — ss. 3, 5.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.