S.Sanjay vs The State Inspector Of Police

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 127, 329(4), 351(3), and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 340, 448, 506(2), and 307 of the IPC), in Crime No.296 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that due to prior enmity, the prime accused (A1) threatened the de facto complainant over the phone regarding a case registered on a complaint by his friend. Subsequently, on 30.07.2026 at about 05.00 P.M., A1 to A4 along with A5 to A10 and other unidentified persons, forming an unlawful assembly, criminally trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant, abused them in obscene language, and launched a violent assault on the de facto complainant and two others. The accused persons further criminally intimidated the victims and fled the scene in a vehicle. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to local animosity. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for a substantial period. He added that the similarly placed co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court, the injured persons have been discharged from the hospital, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail on the ground of parity. Hence, he prayed for the grant of bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner was part of a violent mob that launched a premeditated attack on a residential dwelling. However, he conceded that the similarly placed co-accused have been granted bail and that the injured persons have already been discharged from the hospital. 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, the fact that the injured persons have been discharged from the hospital, and that the co-accused have already been granted bail, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on the ground of parity, 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 Judicial Magistrate – II, 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;

[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.