Mohanchand v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
This matter came up for hearing today under the caption 'For Being Mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2.It is submitted that in the petition the sections of the offence has been wrongly mentioned as "296(b), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS Act r/w 21(1-A) of Arms Act" instead of "296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS, 2023 r/w 25(1A) of Arms Act, 1959".
3.Registry is directed to issue fresh order copy after incorporating the necessary corrections.
23.07.2025 rsi Page No.1 of 8
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi 23.07.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Page No.2 of 8
DATED : 14.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Mohanchand ... Petitioner Vs.
State, represented by The Inspector of Police, Kavarapettai Police Station, Thiruvallur District.
Crime No. 128 of 2025.
... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.128 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent. For Petitioner :
Mr.V.Suresh Babu For Respondent :
Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
O R D E R
The petitioner, who was arrested on 16.06.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS Act r/w 21(1-A) of Arms Act, BNS Act in connection with Crime No. 128 of 2025, registered on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.
Page No.3 of 8
2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant lodged a complaint with the respondent police stating that on 14.06.2025 at about 9:45 p.m., while he was traveling on Kavarapettai to Sathyavedu Road at Iyer Kandigai Village for a village temple festival to provide lighting services, the petitioner, along with other accused, came on a two-wheeler and hit the de facto complainant's vehicle. When the complainant questioned them, a wordy quarrel ensued, during which the petitioner and the other accused assaulted him with a knife and then fled the scene. Hence the case.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submitted that the petitioner is in no way connected with the alleged offence, however, he is suffering incarceration from 16.06.2025. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.
4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing for grant of bail to the petitioner, Page No.4 of 8
reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 16.06.2025 and six previous cases are pending against the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, submissions made by the learned counsels on either side and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, 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.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned DMC cum Judicial Magistrate, Gumudipoondi and on further conditions that:
[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; Page No.5 of 8
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30.a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. [c] the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; [d] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de facto complainant and witnesses; [e] the petitioner to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard; [f] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned 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)13 SCC 283];
[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can Page No.6 of 8
be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.
14.07.2025 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. The DMC cum Judicial Magistrate, Gumudipoondi.
2. The Inspector of Police, Kavarapettai Police Station, Thiruvallur District.
3. The Central Prison, Puzhal.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
nsl Page No.7 of 8
Crl.O.P.No. 19778 of 2025 14.07.2025 Page No.8 of 8