Muniraj S/O.Rajamani, vs Inspector Of Police

C.Kumarappan, J

1.The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.03.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 329(4), 310(2), 311 of B.N.S. read with Section 27(1) of Arms Act in Crime No.42 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/A3 entered into criminal conspiracy along with other accused and in furtherance of which, on 05.03.2026, they went in a Car bearing Registration No.KA06-AR-1984 to a company at Nagamangalam, trespassed into the premises and committed theft of copper materials and other properties. Hence the case.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that even according to the prosecution, the only allegation the petitioner is that he received the stolen property and the petitioner is under incarceration since 09.03.2026 and hence prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and objected the bail application. He would further submit that there are 14 accused and the accused have looted copper materials and other properties worth about Rs.5 lakhs.

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

Though the learned Government Advocate would strongly objection bail application on the ground that there are 14 accused, according to the defacto complainant, the accused had entered into the defacto complainant’s premises, assaulted and looted copper wire materials worth about Rs.5 lakhs. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the specific overt act played by this petitioner is that he received the stolen property. Therefore, taking into consideration of the nature of allegations, the overt act played by the petitioner are only in respect of receipt of stolen property, considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner since 09.03.2026, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to the following stringent 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 No.II, Hosur 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; the petitioner shall sign before the respondent police daily at 10.30 5.30 p.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when by the investigation officer 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.