Babu @ Yoganandham vs State

C.Kumarappan, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 118(1), 191(2), 191(3) and 296(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.41 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and other accused persons, under the influence of alcohol, were shouting and demanding money from the defacto complainant for election work. This led to a wordy quarrel. When the defacto complainant refused to give money, the petitioner and other accused abused him in filthy language and assaulted him severely. During the occurrence, the first accused (A1) hurled a stone at the defacto complainant. While the defacto complainant managed to escape, the stone struck one Gajendran, who was accompanying the defacto complainant. The said Gajendran sustained severe injuries, was admitted to the hospital, and subsequently succumbed to his injuries on 30.04.2026. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. He further submits that even according to the First Information Report (FIR), the petitioner does not commit any assault against the deceased Gajendran; the primary allegations of assault were directed only towards Balaji. He also submits that the co-accused in this case has already been released on bail by this Court on 09.06.2026 in Crl.OP.No.14489 of 2026, and therefore, the petitioners seek bail on the ground of parity.

The learned Government Counsel (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner. He contends that according to the FIR, the petitioner actively participated in the occurrence and assaulted one Balaji with his hands. He, however, does not dispute the factum of the release of the co-accused on bail.

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

Considering the limited overt acts attributed to the petitioner, wherein the specific allegation against him is restricted to assaulting Balaji with hands and no direct assault is alleged against the deceased Gajendran, and taking note of the fact that the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail on 09.06.2026, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of parity and allow the bail application.

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 Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham, Vellore and subject to the following conditions:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Suretyship [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 respondent Police twice daily at 10:30 a.m. and 05:30 p.m., until further orders;

[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 petitioner 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.