Aravind vs State Of Tamil Nadu

C.Kumarappan, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.04.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 127(2), 296(b), 310(2), 351(3) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.22 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant, a food delivery boy, was allegedly lured to a secluded place by the petitioner and the other accused, who restrained him, extorted a sum of Rs.2,650/- through GPay, snatched his mobile phone and silver chain, and caused injuries to him. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 04.04.2026. He would further submit that there are five accused in this case and that all the other accused have already been enlarged on bail by the learned Vacation Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, in Crl.M.P.Nos.1477 and 1507 of 2026, dated 21.05.2026. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner had snatched the mobile phone of the de facto complainant and transferred a sum of Rs.2,650/- from the complainant's account. He further submitted that the petitioner has one previous case.

Taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances, this Court finds that the overt act attributed to the petitioner is not grave in nature. Though the petitioner has one previous case, the role attributed to him is minor and the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail. Hence, this Court is of the firm view that, in order to maintain parity with the earlier orders in the said Crl.M.Ps., 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 his 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 Judicial Magistrate Court-I, Alandur, and on further conditions that:

[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 daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of 30 days, 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 pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned 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)13 SCC 283];

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.