Sudalaikannan And Others vs State

K.Murali Shankar, J

The petitioners, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.04.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 109(1) and 351(3) of BNS and Section 25(1A) of Arms Act corresponding offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 25(1A) of Arms Act, in Crime No.231 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity between the accused persons and the de-facto complainant, the accused persons wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant, abused him in filthy language, pushed him down, attacked him with sickle and caused injuries to him and also made criminal intimidation against him with prohibited weapons. Hence, the complaint.

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he seeks bail.

The learned Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu (Crl. side) strongly opposed to grant bail on the ground that the first petitioner is having six previous cases and the second petitioner is having 16 sixteen previous cases. He would fairly submit that the injured was discharged from the hospital.

The learned counsel for the defacto complainant would concede the submissions of the learned Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu (Crl. side).

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in the present case, there is a false accusation by the maternal uncle and in the previous cases relating to TNPPDL Act, there existed disputes between the petitioners and their maternal uncle.

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also the nature of accusation levelled against the petitioners and also taking note of the fact that the injured was already discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions:

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 learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Srivaikundam, Thoothukudi District.

i) the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate/concerned court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;

ii) the petitioners shall stay at Trichy and report before the Inspector of Police, Cantonment Police Station, Trichy, daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of one month and thereafter, report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

iii) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness.

iv) the petitioners shall not abscond during trial.

v) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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].

vi) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.