Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) Grants Bail to Third Accused in Alleged House-Trespass, Robbery and Video-Recording Case After Seven Months’ Custody; Goondas Detention Already Quashed

The third accused, in custody since 05.03.2026 in Crime No. 70 of 2026 for offences under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000, was alleged to be one of 8 to 10 persons who on 10.02.2026 trespassed into a house, confined and assaulted three women, forcibly stripped and videographed them, threatened them and robbed gold ornaments, a mobile phone and Rs.27,800/- (Paras 1–2). The State opposed, noting ten previous cases (seven pending, three similar) and a charge sheet in P.R.C. No. 36 of 2026, but the High Court, considering his custody since 05.03.2026 and the grant of bail to a co-accused on 18.09.2026, granted bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on conditions including residence at Viluppuram and reporting there (Paras 3–6).

Key Proposition: Long pre-trial custody and parity with a co-accused already granted bail can justify bail even where the State points to previous cases and a serious allegation, the Court controlling risk by conditions such as residence outside the locality, daily reporting and later appearance before the committal court.

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483 – Regular bail – Third accused – Custody since 05.03.2026, charge sheet filed, co-accused granted bail on 18.09.2026 – State relied on ten previous cases – Held, bail granted on conditions. (Paras 3–6)
• Bail conditions – Stay at Viluppuram and report daily to Viluppuram Town Police for thirty days, then sign before the committal court for fifteen days; no tampering, no absconding; P.K. Shaji consequences; fresh FIR under Section 269 BNS if the accused absconds. (Para 6)

Background / Synopsis :

• The petitioner (accused No. 3) was arrested and remanded on 05.03.2026 in Crime No. 70 of 2026 of Town North Police Station, Dindigul District, for offences under Sections 331(6), 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 74, 76, 77, 311, 308(2) and 351(3) BNS and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000, later altered to Sections 332(a), 310(5), 310(6), 127(2), 296(b), 74, 76, 77, 311, 308(2) and 351(3) BNS read with Sections 238 and 3(5) BNS and Section 66E of the IT Act. (Para 1)
• Prosecution case: on 10.02.2026 at about 3.00 p.m., 8 to 10 persons trespassed into a house, confined the complainant and two other women, assaulted them, forcibly stripped them naked, videographed them and threatened them, and robbed gold ornaments, a cell phone and Rs.27,800/-. (Para 2)
• The petitioner pleaded innocence and said that the second accused was granted bail in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 20847 of 2026 on 18.09.2026 and that his own detention under the Goondas Act while in custody was quashed by the High Court on 17.09.2026. The State said 23 grams of gold and the phone were recovered, the cash was not, the charge sheet was filed and taken on file as P.R.C. No. 36 of 2026 before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Dindigul, and the petitioner has ten previous cases (three disposed of, seven pending, three of them similar). (Paras 3–4)

Issues For Consideration :

• Whether the third accused should be released on bail under Section 483 BNSS in light of his custody, parity with the co-accused and his previous cases. (Paras 1, 5)

Submissions Of Parties :
Petitioner:

• He is innocent; he has been in custody since 05.03.2026; the second accused has been granted bail; and his Goondas Act detention was quashed on 17.09.2026. (Para 3)

Respondent (State):

• Part of the stolen property (23 grams of gold and the phone) was recovered, the cash is not; the charge sheet is filed; the petitioner has ten previous cases, seven pending, of which three are similar in nature. (Para 4)

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

• Considering the above facts, the petitioner’s custody since 05.03.2026 and the grant of bail to a co-accused, the Court was inclined to grant bail on conditions. The order does not discuss the State’s reliance on the previous cases or the gravity of the allegations. (Para 5)

Notable Observations:

• “the co-accused was granted bail by this Court” (Para 5)

Decision & Directions :

• 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. II, Dindigul District, 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 petitioner shall stay at Viluppuram and report daily at 10.30 a.m. before the Inspector of Police, Viluppuram Town Police Station, for thirty days, and thereafter appear and sign before the committal court at 10.30 a.m. for fifteen days.
3. He shall not tamper with evidence or witnesses during investigation or trial.
4. He 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 absconds, 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 – Sections 331(6), 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 74, 76, 77, 311, 308(2), 351(3), 332(a), 310(5), 310(6), 127(2), 238 and 3(5) (offences charged; the judgment does not describe them); Section 269 (fresh FIR on absconding, as stated in the order). Editorial IPC equivalents, to be verified: Section 191(2) ↔ 147, 191(3) ↔ 148, 74 ↔ 354, 76 ↔ 354B, 77 ↔ 354C, 308(2) ↔ 384, 351(3) ↔ 506, 127(2) ↔ 342, 238 ↔ 201, 3(5) ↔ 34.
• Information Technology Act, 2000 – Section 66E (violation of privacy; as charged).
• Doctrines: custody period and parity as grounds for bail; conditional bail; detention under the Goondas Act separately quashed (order of 17.09.2026 not reproduced).
• P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala, (2005) AIR SCW 5560 – Followed (action on breach of bail conditions).