Shahul Hameed Barkath v. The Inspector Of Police, Krishnagiri Town P.S.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25.06.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP Nos.16024 & 16101 of 2026 1.Shahul Hameed Barkath 2.Noorullah Al Ameen ..Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.16024 of 1.Sanawaz 2.Purushoth Kumar ..Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.16101 of Vs The Inspector of Police Krishnagiri Town Police Station.

Krishnagiri District.

(Crime No.159 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petitions have been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.159 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.T.Balaji in both Crl.O.Ps For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) in both Crl.O.Ps

COMMON ORDER The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 21.04.2026 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126(2) and 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.159 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a previous enmity between accused No.1 and the defacto complainant's son, Akash. On the date of the incident, due to the said enmity, the petitioners along with other accused persons attacked the defacto complainant's son, because of which, the victim sustained severe injuries and subsequently, succumbed to death. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and that the occurrence took place on 20.04.2026, where initially a wordy quarrel broke out between the accused persons and the defacto complainant's son's friends, which thereafter escalated into an assault. He further submits that the entire occurrence emerged in furtherance of playing cricket and that A5 and A6 were already enlarged on bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.13839 of 2026 on 10.06.2026. hence, he prays for the grant of bail.

4. The learned Government Counsel (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police would reiterate the prosecution case and oppose the grant of bail to the petitioners. However, he would fairly submit that the investigation has been completed.

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

6. Considering the fact that the occurrence took place on 20.04.2026 and the period of incarceration of the petitioners since 21.04.2026 and upon the further fact that the investigation has already been completed and the coaccused have been released on bail, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail with certain conditions:

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Krishnagiri 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 petitioners shall report before respondent Police twice daily at 10:30 a.m. and 05:30 p.m., until further orders; [c] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

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

25.06.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order ata

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 Judicial Magistrate No.1, Krishnagiri.

2.The Superintendent, District Jail, Dharmapuri. 3.The Inspector Of Police, Krishnnagiri Town Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

ata CRL OP. Nos.16024 & 16101 of 2026 25.06.2026