Inbakumar v. State Rep by the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

21.12.2025 for the alleged offence under Section 309 (6) of BNS (394 of I.P.C) in Crime No.256 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has snatched one sovereign of gold chain from the defacto-complainant who is aged about seventy years. Hence the case. Page2 of 4

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and that only on account of resemblance of the petitioner as that of the person involved in the crime, he has been remanded to judicial custody. He further submitted that there is no previous case against the petitioner. Hence, he submitted that this is a fit case in which the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent would fairly submits that there is no previous case against the petitioner. However, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5.While looking at the facts of the case, the petitioner is under incarceration for more than 73 days, since from 21.12.2025. However, the learned Government Advocate would fairly submits that there is no previous case against this petitioner. In such view of the position, and also taking into consideration the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with stringent conditions.

¶6Accordingly, 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) each, with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Page3 of 4 learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Vellore, and subject to the following conditions: [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 stay at Madurai and report before the Tallakulam police station in the morning at

10.30 AM and evening at 5.30 PM 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 take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283]; [f] if the petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 05-03-2026 ep Page4 of 4

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. ep To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.V, Vellore.

2.Central Prison, Vellore

3.The Inspector of Police Pallikonda Police Station, Pallikonda, Vellore District. 05-03-2026

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Inbakumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep by The Inspector of Police Pallikonda Police Station, Pallikonda, Vellore District. Crime No. 256 of 2025 ..Respondent(s) Prayer :- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of BNSS Act, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending investigation in Cr.No.256 of 2025 on the file of the respondent. For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.Muruganantham For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Criminal side)