Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) Grants Bail to Two Accused in Alleged Finance-Office Robbery Case Where Complainant’s Ornaments Were Left Behind

Accused 3 and 4, remanded on 03.10.2026 in Crime No. 748 of 2026 for an offence under Section 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), were alleged to have joined four others in demanding money from a finance-company owner, one accused slapping him and snatching his gold ornaments while the second petitioner and another stood guard outside, the accused fleeing and leaving the ornaments behind when he raised an alarm (Paras 1–2). Considering the nature of the charges, their custody since 03.10.2026, the absence of bad antecedents and the grant of anticipatory bail to the sixth accused, the High Court granted bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on a Rs.25,000/- bond with two sureties each and standard conditions (Paras 3–6).

Key Proposition: Bail may be granted to accused who have been in custody since arrest and have no bad antecedents, even in a case alleging snatching with a group of six accused, on a surety bond and conditions of daily reporting for a month, non-tampering and non-absconding.

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483 – Regular bail – Accused 3 and 4 – Section 310(2) BNS – Custody since 03.10.2026, no bad antecedents – Held, bail granted on conditions. (Paras 1, 3–6)
• Bail conditions – Daily reporting at 10.30 a.m. for one month, no tampering, no absconding; consequences of breach per P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala, (2005) AIR SCW 5560; fresh FIR under Section 269 BNS if the accused absconds. (Para 6)

Background / Synopsis :

• Petitioners, accused 3 and 4, were arrested and remanded on 03.10.2026 in Crime No. 748 of 2026 of Dindigul Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District, for an offence under Section 310(2) BNS. (Para 1)
• Prosecution case: the complainant runs a finance company and knew the accused, to whom he had lent money earlier. On 02.10.2026 at about 7.00 p.m. the first petitioner and accused 1 and 2 entered the office while the second petitioner and accused 5 and 6 stood outside; as the business was successful they demanded money; on refusal the first accused slapped the complainant and snatched his gold ornaments while the second petitioner and the sixth accused allegedly stood guard; on his alarm the accused fled, leaving the ornaments behind. (Para 2)
• There are six accused; the sixth accused was granted anticipatory bail by the Principal Sessions Court in Crl.M.P. No. 2947 of 2026 on 13.10.2026. The State said the petitioners have no previous cases. (Paras 3–4)

Issues For Consideration :

• Whether the petitioners (accused 3 and 4) should be released on bail under Section 483 BNSS, and on what conditions. (Paras 1, 5)

Submissions Of Parties :
Petitioners:

• They are innocent and have committed no offence; the sixth accused has been granted anticipatory bail; they have been in judicial custody since 03.10.2026. (Para 3)

Respondent (State):

• There are six accused in all and the petitioners (accused 3 and 4) have no previous cases; opposition to bail is not stated in the judgment. (Para 4)

Court's Observations & Analysis :
Re: Issue – Grant of bail

• Considering the nature of the charges, the petitioners’ custody since 03.10.2026 and the absence of bad antecedents, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail on conditions. No reasoning on the merits or on precedent is recorded. (Para 5)

Notable Observations:

• “the petitioners are not having any bad antecedents” (Para 5)

Decision & Directions :

• Each petitioner to be released on bail on executing a bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Dindigul, on the following conditions. (Para 6)

1. The sureties shall affix photographs and left thumb impressions on the bond, and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or bank pass book.
2. The petitioners shall report daily at 10.30 a.m. before the respondent police for one month and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.
3. They shall not tamper with evidence or witnesses during investigation or trial.
4. They shall not abscond during investigation or trial.
5. On breach of any condition, the Magistrate or trial court may act as if the conditions had been imposed by it (P.K. Shaji).
6. If the accused abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS, 2023.

• Costs: Not stated in judgment. Separate Opinions: None.

Legal Provisions Discussed & Precedents Cited :

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483 (bail by High Court or Court of Session) ↔ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439.
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 310(2) (offence charged; not described in the judgment) ↔ Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 395 (editorial equivalent: dacoity, to be verified); Section 269 (fresh FIR on absconding, as stated in the order).
• Doctrines: custody period and absence of antecedents as grounds for bail; conditional bail.
• P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala, (2005) AIR SCW 5560 – Followed (action on breach of bail conditions).