Rajesh And Others vs State

T.V.Thamilselvi, J

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 05.11.2025 for the alleged offence under Section 296(b), 115(2), 118(2), 353(3) BNS and 25(1-A) of Arms Act r/w 3(5) BNS, 2023 @ 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(2), 351(3) BNS and 25(1-a) of Arms Act r/w 190 BNS in Crime No.132 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

The case of prosecution is that on 04.11.2025 at 14.30 hours, due to previous enmity, the petitioners have conspired together, abused the defacto complainant's son with filthy language, assaulted him with knife and wooden log, thereby caused injuries and also threatened them dire consequences. Hence, the complaint was registered against the petitioner.

3.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that it is case in counter. He would submit that earlier, the petitioners were attacked by the defacto complainant, and they have given a complaint, which was registered in Crime No.131 of 2025, as a counterblast, the present complaint has been filed. He would submit that they are innocent persons and they are no way connected with the offence. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioners.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that the dispute arose between them due to a quarrel in a marriage function and there is no previous cases against them. He would submit that it is a case in counter and during the assault, three persons were injured, out of which two victims were discharged from hospital after treatment. He would submit that if they are released on bail, they would tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation and the investigation is almost completed. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.

Considering the above facts and circumstances and the fact reveals that according to the prosecution, due to previous enmity, there was a wordy quarrel between them, thereby three victims sustained simple injuries and out of them, two victims were discharged from the hospital and the fact that the investigation is almost completed, it is a case in counter and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioners for more than 6 days from 05.11.2025, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

Accordingly, the petitioners are 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, in which one surety must be a blood surety, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I Puducherry, and on further conditions that:

(a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;

(b) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for period of two months;

(c) the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature;

(d) the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(e) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(f) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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 229A IPC.