Sathiesh v. The State Rep. By, the Inspector of Police

ORDER There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

¶2The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody for the alleged offences under Sections 329(4), 296(b), 324(2), 115(2), 326(g) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the TNPHW Act, in Crime No.454 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶3It is the case of the prosecution that, due to previous enmity, the petitioner trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and caused damage to his mixie and cable. Hence, the case.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent, while opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and, on instructions, submitted that a major portion of the investigation has already been completed and that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. He also submitted that no one has sustained any injury.

¶5Considering the totality of the circumstances, the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, the fact that no one has sustained any injury, and also the fact that a major portion of the investigation has already been completed, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.

¶6Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on their 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 District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Madhavaram 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 report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [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 petitioners 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.

03.08.2026 skr Note:

¶1Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

¶2All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code. To

¶1The learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Madhavaram

¶2The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal

¶3The Inspector of Police, M3, Puzhal Police Station

¶4The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras C.KUMARAPPAN,J. skr

03.08.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 03.08.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Sathiesh ... Petitioner(s) Vs. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, M3, Puzhal Police Station ... Respondent(s) Crime No.454 of 2026 PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in Crime No.454 of 2026 pending on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s) : No appearance For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)