Reehan And Others vs Inspector Of Police

C.Kumarappan, J

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 21.04.2026 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126(2) and 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.159 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that there was a previous enmity between accused No.1 and the defacto complainant's son, Akash. On the date of the incident, due to the said enmity, the petitioners along with other accused persons attacked the defacto complainant's son, because of which the victim sustained severe injuries and subsequently succumbed to the same. Pursuant to the investigation, the petitioners were arrested and remanded in judicial custody. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and that the occurrence took place on 20.04.2026, where initially a wordy quarrel broke out between the accused persons and the defacto complainant's son's friends, which thereafter escalated into an assault. He further submits that the entire occurrence emerged in furtherance of playing cricket and that the primary overt acts of assault are attributed only to A1 to A4 and the petitioners are A5 and A6. He contends that the petitioners have been implicated in this case merely due to their presence at the scene of occurrence, and therefore, seeks the grant of bail.

The learned Government Counsel (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police opposes the grant of bail to the petitioners. However, he fairly concedes that according to the prosecution case, while A1 to A4 assaulted the deceased, the specific overt act alleged against the petitioners is only that they restrained the deceased from moving, and apart from his presence and the act of restraining, there are no other specific overt acts of assault attributed to them.

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

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking note of the fact that the specific overt act attributed to the petitioners are limited to restraining the deceased while the primary assault is alleged against A1 to A4, and further considering that the petitioners have been in incarceration since 21.04.2026 and a major portion of the investigation has already been completed, this Court is inclined to allow the bail application.

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 Judicial Magistrate No.1, Krishnagiri 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 petitioners shall report before respondent Police twice daily at 10:30 a.m. and 05:30 p.m., until further orders;

[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.