Lokesh v. The State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Lokesh ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, K3, Aminjikarai Police Station, Chennai.
..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 pending investigation in Cr.No.334 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent. For Petitioner(s):
Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj 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 31.05.2026 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 329(3) and 75(1) (i) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, in Crime No.334 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant placed an order through an online platform. On the day of delivery, she missed a phone call from the delivery executive. The petitioner, who was working as the delivery boy, came up to the second floor of her building, requested the delivery OTP, and handed over the product. He then requested a glass of water, which the defacto complainant provided. It is alleged that the petitioner tried to shake hands with her, followed her inside the house as she went to open the parcel, and attempted to hug her from behind. When she turned around, the petitioner allegedly physically assaulted her by touching her face. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner is a young man aged about 21 years who is currently pursuing his MBA degree and working part-time as a delivery boy to support his education and his family. He prays for the grant of bail considering the petitioner's age, career prospects, and the period of custody already undergone.
4. The learned Government Counsel (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterates the case of the prosecution and highlights the nature of the allegations. However, he fairly submits that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.
6. Considering the facts and the totality of the circumstances, this Court takes note of the fact that the petitioner is a 21-year-old student pursuing his higher education who has no bad antecedents or previous cases registered against him. Taking into further consideration the period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions to ensure his disciplined conduct.
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 each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the V 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 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 everyday at 05:30 p.m. for a period of 30 days 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 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.
12-06-2026 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 Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal. 3.The Inspector of Police, K3, Aminjikarai Police Station, Chennai. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
Jeni 12-06-2026