Sheik Mohammed Roshan.B v. The State Represented by the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner/A3, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

13.06.2026 for the alleged offences under Section Sections 262, 264, 61, 253 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No.201 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page2 of 6

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the Special Sub-Inspector of the Armed Reserve Police, Coimbatore, who was in charge of the convict ward. There are three accused in this case. A-1 is involved in various cases across multiple states, while A-2 is the car driver of A-1 in Coimbatore. A-1 and A-2 shared regular financial transactions. The petitioner (A-3) is an Armed Reserve Police Officer who was responsible for the custody of another accused, one Jahir Hussain. A-1 was arrested by the Tiruppur Police in connection with a case in Crime No. 495/2026 on the file of the Tiruppur North Police Station. On 05.06.2026, A-1 was admitted to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore, for treatment under the surveillance of the Armed Reserve Police. A-2 and the petitioner (A-3) conspired to help A-1 escape from police custody. On the date of the occurrence, A-1 escaped from the Government Hospital, took an autorickshaw and met A-2 to collect money. A-2 subsequently arranged a taxi for A-1 to escape to Bengaluru. However, during a vehicle check, the police team intercepted and apprehended A-1. Hence, the present case was registered.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not present at the scene of the alleged occurrence, as he was in his quarters at that time. He further submits that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 13.06.2026 and is ready to abide by any conditions that Page3 of 6 may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for the grant of bail.

¶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 the petitioner has no bad antecedents.

¶5I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

¶6Considering the submissions of the learned counsel on both sides, the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner since 13.06.2026, the absence of any criminal antecedents and the fact that the petitioner is a Government employee, this Court is of the view that the petitioner's further custody for the purpose of investigation is not required as by this time a major portion of the investigation might have been completed. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.

¶7Accordingly, 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 each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore and subject to the following Page4 of 6 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 daily 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 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. 28-07-2026 NSL Page5 of 6 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 Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore.

¶2Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶3The Inspector of Police, Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore District.

¶4The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o20277oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. NSL CRLoOPoNo.o20277oofo2026 28-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Sheik Mohammed Roshan.B ..Petitioner/A3 Vs The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore District. in Crime No. 201 of 2026 ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending trial in C.C.No.2522 of 2026 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore. For Petitioner: Mr.S.Jaisurya For Respondent: Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu (Criminal Side)