Kari Udhaya And Others vs State

C.Kumarappan, J

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 10.01.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 127(2), 191(2), 296(b), 310(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.22 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners waylaid the defacto complainant, robbed a sum of Rs.600/- from him and also abused him in filthy language. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 10.01.2026. According to the prosecution, at about 09.00 a.m., when the defacto complainant was near an ATM machine, the petitioners waylaid him and demanded a sum of Rs.600/- at knife point. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners are not involved in the alleged offence.

The said contention was strongly opposed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent, who submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since 10.01.2026. He further submitted that though the petitioners robbed a sum of Rs.600/- from the complainant, a sum of Rs.200/- was recovered from them. It was also submitted that five previous cases are pending against the first petitioner and three previous cases are pending against the second petitioner, and that the investigation is still pending. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the bail application.

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

According to the factual position, five previous cases are pending against the first petitioner and three previous cases are pending against the second petitioner. However, the petitioners have been in custody since 10.01.2026 for nearly 50 days. Considering the age of the petitioners, namely 26 years and 23 years respectively, the submission that they are the sole breadwinners of their families, and the fact that the previous cases relate to the years 2022 to 2024, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) each, with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tiruvallur, 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent police twice a day at 10.30 a.m. and 05.30 p.m. for a period of one month and thereafter appear before the respondent police at 10.30 a.m. for a further period of two weeks and as and when required for interrogation;

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

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