R.Jegan vs State

K.Rajasekar, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.09.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 329(4), 324(4), 296(b), 115(2), 303(2), 326(g) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.98 of 2025, registered on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner joining hands with others had entered into the defacto complainant's premises and attacked him and also damaged the properties worth about about Rs.15 lakhs and also scolded and abused the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is document writer and due to business rivalry, a false and exaggerated complaint has been lodged by the defacto complainant. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that, investigation is pending. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

Considering the the nature of offence and taking into account the period of incarceration, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions:

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the credit of Crime No.98 of 2025 and on such deposit, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on their 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, Chidambaram 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;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30.a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[c] the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required;

[d] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de facto complainant and witnesses;

[e] the petitioner to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard;

[f] 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];

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.