Jayachandran & Anr. vs The State Represented By The Inspector Of Police

The petitioners, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.08.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections 103(1), 109, 118(1), 126(2), 127(2), 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 351(3) of BNS, Act 2023, in Crime No.235 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that on 16.08.2026, a gang clash occurred in broad daylight at Neyveli, Cuddalore District, wherein Naresh Kumar was brutally hacked to death near a TASMAC shop behind Neyveli Circle-II. The prosecution alleges that the occurrence was due to longstanding enmity between the deceased and the accused, which had continued for nearly eight years. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this is the second bail application filed by the petitioner. Earlier bail application was dismissed on account of investigation pending. He further submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioners names are not found place in the FIR, and that they are the college going students. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the Petitioners.

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the specific overt act against the petitioners is that they waylaid the deceased and that they were also present in the said occurrence. However, he opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioners.

I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

On perusal of the FIR, it is seen that the petitioners names are not found place in the FIR. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioners wer present in the said occurrence and waylaid the deceased. Except that, there is no specific overt act against the petitioners. Considering the nature of the allegations, the period of incarceration of the petitioners and that the petitioners are college going students, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail subject to certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a separate bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli, Cuddalore District, 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;

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police twice daily at 10.30 a.m., and 5.30 p.m., until further orders;

[c] the petitionerd 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 pass appropriate orders against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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.