Akilan @ Joshuva v. State By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Akilan @ Joshuva ..Petitioner(s) Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Inspector of Police, M-3, Puzhal Police Station, Chennai.

Crime No.1142/2025.

..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in Crime No.1142 of 2025 on the file of the M-3 Puzhal Police Station, Chennai to the respondent police on such terms and conditions. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.R.Rajadurai For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 19.12.2025 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 309(4), 311 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.1142 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused persons went to the shop of the defacto complainant and demanded money for the purpose of consuming alcohol. When the defacto complainant refused to give the money, the petitioner and the other accused persons allegedly harassed and attacked him. They further robbed a sum of Rs. 2,100/- from him at knife point and escaped from the scene of occurrence. Pursuant to the investigation, the petitioner was arrested and remanded in judicial custody. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He further submits that the petitioner has been in continuous judicial custody since 19.12.2025. He also points out that the co-accused in this case has already been released on bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.1807 of 2026 on 28.01.2026. Furthermore, he submits that the charge sheet has already been filed in this case, and therefore, the petitioner seeks bail on the ground of parity and long incarceration

4. The learned Government Counsel (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police strongly opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner. He contends that the petitioner is arrayed as Accused No. 1 (A1) and was actively involved in robbing the complainant at knife point. He further highlights that

the petitioner is a habitual offender who has 7 previous cases of a similar nature registered against him. He, however, does not dispute the fact that the coaccused has already been released on bail and that the charge sheet has been filed.

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

6. Though the learned Government Counsel strongly opposes the bail application on the ground of the petitioner's antecedents involving 7 previous cases, this Court takes into consideration the fact that the investigation is complete and the charge sheet has already been filed. Taking note of the long period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner since 19.12.2025, and the fact that the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail, this Court is inclined to allow the bail application.

7. Accordingly, 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 District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Madhavaram and subject to the following conditions:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left

Thumb Impression in the Application for Suretyship [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 respondent Police twice daily at 10:30 a.m. and 05:30 p.m., until further orders and no relaxation petitions shall be entertained for a period of 90 days;

[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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioner 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.

10-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Jeni

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.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Madhavaram. 2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 3.The Inspector of Police, M-3, Puzhal Police Station, Chennai. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

Jeni 10-06-2026