Vidathan vs State Of Tamilnadu

P. Dhanabal, J

The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.04.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 329(4), 351(3) of BNS, 2023, Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 2002 & Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 1992 in Crime No.88 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, on 03.04.2026 at about 11.30 p.m, the petitioner and the other accused attacked the defacto complainant with aruval and knife and caused blood injury and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that it is a case and case in counter and the injured was discharged from the hospital and he has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.04.2026. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that due to previous enmity, with an intention to murder the defacto complainant, the petitioner and other accused attacked the complainant with deadly weapons and caused blood injuries all over the body and the offence is grave in nature and the petitioner has 3 previous cases and hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner. He would further submit that it is a case and case in counter and the injured was discharged from the hospital.

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 there is a dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant and it is a case and case in counter and counter case has been registered against the complainant and the injured was discharged from the hospital and though the petitioner has 3 previous cases, those cases are not in a similar kind of offencea and in those cases, he was granted bail and anticipatory bail and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, 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 Judicial Magistrate at Karaikudi, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of 30 days and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

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