Subbiah @ Subash v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Kalakkad

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 24.11.2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD)No.21252 of 2025 Subbiah @ Subash ... Petitioner/ Accused Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Kalakkad Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

(Crime No.721 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ponraj For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.721 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

1/6

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 29.10.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 189(2), 296(b), 329(4), 351(3) of BNS and 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, in Crime No.721 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous motive, the petitioner, along with other accused persons, trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and attacked him with an aruval, causing injuries to both his hands. They also damaged the house, including the windows, door, television, showcase, and three motorcycles. Further, they damaged the CCTV camera and the mobile phone of the complainant, and criminally intimidated the defacto complainant and others. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the co-accused 2/6

has already been granted bail and that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 29.10.2025. Hence, he seeks bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused persons trespassed into the defacto complainant's house, assaulted him with an aruval, caused injuries to his hands, damaged household articles, vehicles, CCTV camera, and phone, and criminally intimidated him. Therefore, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration of the fact that the co-accused has already been granted bail and also considering the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on 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 Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri, and on further conditions that :- 3/6

[a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity. [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. [c] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[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 is 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].

4/6

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

(S S Y J) 24.11.2025 jbr To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri.

2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai.

3. The Inspector of Police, Kalakkad Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

S.SRIMATHY,J.

jbr

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.21252 of 2025 Date : 24.11.2025 6/6