Muthukalyani vs State Of Tamilnadu

P. Dhanabal, J

The petitioner/sole Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.11.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 308(4), 109(1) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.437 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is a coolie worker. On 01.11.2025, at about 07.00 a.m., when the defacto complainant and his friend were coming near a petrol bunk in Paraikadu Village, the petitioner came there and asked money to drink liquor. Since the defacto complainant refused to give money, the petitioner tried to attack with aruval and extorted a sum of Rs.500/-. Hence, the complaint.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.11.2025. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has also been filed and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.184 of 2026 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Court, Thoothukudi and now the case is pending trial. He would further submit that the petitioner is a history sheeter and he has previous cases and the injured person has been discharged from the hospital. However, he vehemently, opposed to grant of bail.

This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, nature of offence, and though the petitioner has previous cases, the same are not similar kind of offence and in all cases, he was released on bail and the investigation has been completed and now the case in S.C.No.184 of 2026 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Thoothukudi, is pending trial and also considering the fact that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner from 01.11.2025, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Thoothukudi, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Thoothukudi, on all working days at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which she is suspected;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the 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)AIR SCW 5560].

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.