Disposed

Abinesh Rozario @ Rozario v. State Rep by Its

Madras HC14 Nov 2024CRL OP/26387/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail petition by a 19-year-old arrested for assault and bomb-throwing at the defacto complainant's house. Despite a pending preventive detention proposal, the court granted bail citing his age and period of incarceration, with conditions including dual daily police reporting.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on Rs.15,000 bond with two sureties (one parent), subject to conditions including daily reporting to respondent police twice a day.

Abinesh Rozario @ Rozario Vs State Rep by Its — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.26387 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 14.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.26387 of 2024

¶7

Abinesh Rozario @ Rozario

¶8

... Petitioner/A1

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Villupuram Town Police Station, Villupuram District.

¶11

(Crime No.384 of 2024).

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS Act, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.384 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kalaiyarasan

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner,

¶18

who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.10.2024, seeking bail in Crime No.384 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6

¶20

Crl.O.P.No.26387 of 2024

¶21

296(b), 115(2), 351(3), 326(g) of BNS, 2023, and Sections 9(B)(1)(a), 9(B)(1)(b) of Explosives Act.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that on 05.10.2024, the petitioner

¶23

along with the other accused, assaulted the defacto complainant and his friends with hands and legs and on the same day, at about 11.00 p.m., the defacto complainant had heard bomb scanned with OKEN Scanner Blast sound and when he came outside his house, he saw that the front door and wall of his house were damaged. Hence, the case.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and a false complaint has been given. He further submitted that the petitioner is aged 19 years and the petitioner has been in custody from 14.10.2024. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶25

Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the

¶26

respondent police, while opposing for grant of bail to the petitioner,

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.26387 of 2024

¶29

submitted that the petitioner is a drunk addicted and due to previous enmity, the petitioner along with the other accused thrown a bomb in front of the defacto complainant and caused damages. He further submitted that there is one previous case against the petitioner similar in nature and the proposal for detaining the petitioner under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 is still pending for approval.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record including the counter affidavit filed by the respondent.

¶31

6.On the earlier occasion, time was sought by the learned Government Advocate stating that since the petitioner is involved in an earlier case of Explosives Act, and a proposal has been initiated by the respondent for detaining the petitioner under Act 14 of 1982 and thereby, the case was adjourned twice. Even today, adjournment is sought for by the learned Government Advocate.

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶33

Crl.O.P.No.26387 of 2024

¶34

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the

¶35

case, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and the fact that the age of the petitioner is 19 years and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶36

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties (one of the surety shall be either the father or the mother of the petitioner) , each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram, and on further conditions that:

¶37

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶38

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m and 6.30 p.m., until further orders.

¶39

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond during trial and shall co-operate for speedy disposal of the trial;

¶40

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence

¶41

4/6

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6

¶43

Crl.O.P.No.26387 of 2024

¶44

or witness during trial;

¶45

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the 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)AIR SCW 5560];

¶46

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

14.11.2024

ata