Athivk vs State Rep. by The Inspector of Police

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.08.2026 for the alleged offences punishable under 309(4) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.216 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the accused enticed the defacto complainant into a car through a mobile application and robbed his gold jewellery at knife point. It is further alleged that the accused forcefully transferred Rs.5,000/- through the victim's mobile phone and withdrew an additional Rs.6,000/- from an ATM center using a QR code. Hence, the case was registered.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of the allegations and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner has been in continuous judicial custody since 03.08.2026. Highlighting that the co-accused who is similarly placed has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, he prays for the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground of parity.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent strongly opposes the grant of bail. He submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender with three previous cases pending against him, which include one under the NDPS Act, one under Section 420 of the IPC, and another IPC offence. However, he concedes the fact that the co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court.

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner from 03.08.2026, and taking note of the fact that the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on the ground of parity, notwithstanding his three previous antecedents.

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, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore and on further conditions that:

[a] the sureties shall affix his 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 his identity;

[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 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];

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. be noted, this order when uploaded in the