Aravind vs State

C.Kumarappan, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.02.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 324(5), 326(g), 329(4) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 4 of the TNPHW Act, in Crime No.38 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The allegation against the petitioner is that, due to previous enmity, the petitioner, along with the other accused, set fire to the house of the defacto complainant during a temple festival. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegations are false and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that no injuries were sustained by the defacto complainant. Hence, he prayed for the grant of bail.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent, while opposing the grant of bail, fairly submitted that no injuries were sustained by the defacto complainant and that the petitioner has been in custody since 14.02.2026.

I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner and the fact that no injuries were sustained by the defacto complainant, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kurinjipadi, and subject to the following conditions:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[e] on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[f] if the petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.