Ravi v. The State Rep.By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Ravi ..Petitioner Vs The State represented by the, The Sub-Inspector of Police, D3, Ice House Police Station, Chennai. Crime No.46 of 2026.

..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending investigation in the Crime No.46 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, D3 Ice House Police Station, Chennai.

For Petitioner:

Mr.R. Shriharan For Respondent:

Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.02.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 304(2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.46 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.02.2026 at about 12.00 p.m., the defacto complainant parked his auto and while standing nearby, the petitioner along with other accused snatched his mobile phone and fled away. Hence, the case was registered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and he has nothing to do with the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no previous bad antecedents and he is a permanent resident and he will not abscond. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner has been in incarceration since 18.02.2026 and the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is involved in two offences on the same day, one relating to attempt to snatch chain and another relating to snatching of mobile phone. However, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) fairly submitted that the stolen property has already been recovered. It is also submitted that there are no previous cases against the petitioner and investigation is also completed. However, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

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

6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court is of the view that though the petitioner is involved in two offences committed on the same day, the stolen property has already been recovered. Further there are no previous cases against the petitioner and he has been in incarceration since 18.02.2026. Taking into account the totality of the circumstances and the fact that the investigation is now complete, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and subject to the following conditions:

[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 twice a day at 10.30 a.m. and 05.30 p.m. for a

period of two month and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner 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 petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

15-04-2026 NSL Note:

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

To

1. II Metropolitan Magistrate at Egmore, Chennai.

2. Central Prison Puzhal -II, Chennai.

3. The Sub-Inspector of Police, D3, Ice House Police Station, Chennai.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

NSL 15-04-2026 2/2