Pasupathi vs The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.04.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 324(4), 109, 308(5), 351(3) of BNS and 27(2) of Arms Act, in Crime No. 358 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the co-accused person intercepted the bus and scolded the de-facto complainant and the driver in filthy language, assaulted them with bare hands, damaged the bus windows, attempted to assault the de-facto complainant with a big sickle and threatened them by showing the sickle with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is a history sheeter and was detained under the Goondas Act on 25.05.2026. In the present case, he was arrested on 20.04.2026. He also further submitted that the detention order under the Goondas Act was set aside by this Court by order dated 22.06.2026 and he is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the Petitioner.

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there are 15 previous cases are pending against him. However, he opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner.

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

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions.

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 each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1, Mayiladuthurai, 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

[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.