A.Velu vs State

K.Rajasekar, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.11.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 329(4) and 75 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023-Section in Crime No.823 of 2025, registered on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

The allegation against the petitioner is that the defacto complainant, who is working as the Lab Technician in the Clinic was staying in the room in the upstairs of the Clinic and on the date of occurrence, the petitioner, who is working as a Watchman in the Clinic under the guise of giving food came to her room at 10.30.p.m., and tried to misbehave with her by touching her inappropriately. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the investigation in this case is pending. However, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the period of incarceration of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

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 XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet 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 appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30.a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[c] the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required;

[d] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de facto complainant and witnesses;

[e] the petitioner to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard;

[f] 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];

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