AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 296(b), 351(3) of BNS under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 118(1), 296(1) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), in Crime No.324 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the younger son of the deceased Ramasamy. The petitioner had unauthorizedly erected a tin-sheet shed encroaching upon a 9-cent land parcel belonging to the deceased. Ten days prior to the occurrence, a dispute arose when the deceased demanded the dismantling of the said shed. Though a police complaint was lodged by the deceased, the issue was temporarily settled through a village mediation. However, lingering animosity persisted. On 28.06.2026 at about 09.30 A.M., when the deceased, along with two workers, attempted to dismantle the shed, the petitioner arrived at the spot in a fit of rage, picked up an iron rod, and forcefully struck the deceased on his head, inflicting fatal injuries which resulted in his death. Hence, the case.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He further submitted that there was no premeditation or intention to cause death, and the incident occurred during a sudden family altercation without any weapon brought in advance. He added that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since his arrest, the weapon has been recovered, and the main investigation is substantially completed. Hence, he prayed for the grant of bail.
The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner committed a heinous offense of parricide by attacking his own father with an iron rod, resulting in his death. He further submitted that the investigation is still in progress, and if released on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the eyewitnesses. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the bail petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), and perused the materials available on record.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, and the fact that the incident arose out of a sudden provocation within a domestic property dispute without prior premeditation, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain strict 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, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate I, Ulundurpet, Kallakurichi District, 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;
[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. be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.