Rosema vs The State Represented By The Inspector Of Police

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 27.09.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections 109(1), 118(1), 296(b), 351(3) of BNS Act, 2023 in Crime No.446 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner along with other accused attacked the defacto complainant with deadly weapons and caused injuries to him and also abused the defacto complainant with filthy language. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner is in judicial custody since 27.09.2026; and that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court and sought for bail to the petitioner.

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case, the petitioner along with other accused attacked the defacto complainant with deadly weapons and caused injuries to him and also abused the defacto complainant with filthy language, A2 is having one previous case. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

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

It is submitted that A2 is having one previous case, on further enquiry it is submitted that one pending previous case is in Crime No.546 of 2026 registered on 04.10.2026. It can be seen that while the petitioner was arrested as early as on 27.09.2026. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the main allegation is that the attack is against only the A1 and she has no specific role in the alleged attack. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the period of incarceration, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with 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, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Arakkonam, 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.