Samiullah Baig v. State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.12.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL Samiullah Baig ... Petitioner Vs.
State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, ICE House Police Station, Chennai District.
(Crime No.302 of 2025)
...Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. Act, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of the arrest by the respondent police D-3 ICE House Police Station, Chennai District, for an alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 311, 125, & 351(3) of BNS Act, in Crime No.302 of 2025 in the interest of justice.
For Petitioner : Mr.Karthick V For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioner/accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the 1/6
respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 311, 125, & 351(3) of BNS Act, in Crime No.302 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is running a fast food shop, the petitioner along with other accused called him over phone to give Rs.5,000/-, when the same was refused, the accused have entered into the shop of the defacto complainant and had taken a sum of Rs.2,000/- kept in the cash box, abused him and also attacked him. Hence the complaint.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person, he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen and he is ready and willing to furnish substantial sureties and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court; therefore, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
2/6
4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner along with other named accused entered into the shop of the defacto complainant and snatched a sum of Rs.2,000/- kept in the cash box, attacked and abused him. He was added as an accused on the confession statement made by the co-accused. He further submitted that the petitioner is having six previous cases and the co-accused were enlarged on bail. However, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the representation made by both sides, the nature of offences, and also considering the fact that co-accused in this case were enlarged on bail, and the petitioner was arrayed as an accused based on the confession statement of the co-accused, and though the petitioner has six previous cases against him, he was granted bail in all the six cases, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
3/6
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy was made ready, before the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore at Chennai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute 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 Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions that:
[a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of 30 days and thereafter, as and when required for the interrogation;
[b] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
[c] the petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court;
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
4/6
[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the 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 of the BNS.
30.12.2025 dna/kas 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 official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.
5/6
P. DHANABAL, J.
dna/kas Copy to:
1.The II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore at Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police, ICE House Police Station, Chennai District.
(Crime No.302 of 2025) 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai - 600 104.
30.12.2025 6/6