Karthikeyan v. The State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 29.04.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Karthikeyan ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Sholinghur Police Station, Ranipet District.

(Crime No.118 of 2025).

... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in connection with the Crime No.118 of 2025, pending investigation on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balaji For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.03.2025, seeking bail in Crime No.118 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 103, 191(2), 191(3), 61(2), 296(b), 118(1), 132 of BNS Act. 1/5

2. The case of the prosecution is that, due to previous enmity between A1 and the defacto complainant, A1 and others assaulted the deceased using knife, as a result of which, deceased sustained severe injuries and died. It is further alleged that the deceased said to have supplied weapons to the main accused. Hence, the case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegations are false; that the petitioner was not present in the scene of occurrence; that the petitioner is in custody from 08.03.2025 and further custody is not required for the purpose of investigation. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) reiterated the prosecution case and confirmed the fact that the petitioner was not present in the scene of occurrence.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record.

2/5

6. Considering, the nature of allegation; the period of incarceration; the fact that the petitioner was not present in the scene of occurrence and since further custody is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet, Ranipet District and on further conditions that:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

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

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the 3/5

learned 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];

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

29.04.2025 Sma To

1. District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Walajahpet. 2.The Inspector of Police, Sholinghur Police Station, Ranipet District.

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

4/5

SUNDER MOHAN., J.

Sma 29.04.2025 5/5