COMMON JUDGMENT

Both the appeals challenge the dismissal of the bail applications filed by the appellants who are arrayed as accused.

2. The appellants were arrested on 06.11.2024 & 05.11.2024 for the alleged offences under Section 105 BNS, 9 (B)(1)(b) of Explosives Act r/w Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act 1989.

3. The allegations against the appellants is that on the date of occurrence, i.e. 05.11.2024, the appellants and the other accused had caused the death of the son of the defacto complainant by throwing crackers on him. The petition filed by the appellants for bail were dismissed on the ground that the appellants have threatened the defacto complainant to withdraw the complainant through henchmen.

4. The learned counsel for appellants would submit that it is the case of the prosecution that the crackers were burst during a funeral ceremony; that the crackers fell accidentally on the victim and it is not intended to cause the death of the victim ; that in any case, the custody of the appellants is not required for further investigation ad that the appellants shall abide by any stringent conditions imposed by this court.

5. The learned counsels appearing for the 3rd respondent would submit that the appellants are threatening the defacto complainant and the witnesses to withdraw the complaint; that if they are released on bail, life of the defacto complainant would be in danger and prayed for dismissal of the appeals.

6. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) would submit that if the appellants are released on bail, there is a possibility of commotion in the locality and hence opposed the grant of bail to the appellants.

7. Considering the nature of allegations; that the offence charged is under Section 105 BNS i.e. culpable homicide not amounting to murder; that the appellants are in custody from 05.11.2024 / 06.11.2024 and that their further detention is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the appellants. However, considering the fact that the release of the appellants would cause commotion in the locality, this court is of the view that the appellants can be directed to stay at Chennai and report before the Inspector of Police, Flower Bazaar Police Station, Chennai at 10.30 a.m. every day, until further orders. It is needless to say that if the appellants threaten the witness, it is open to the defacto complainant / witnesses to take appropriate action.

8. Accordingly, the appellants are ordered to be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

(i) The appellants shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Cuddalore ;

(ii) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Judge may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

(iii)the appellants shall stay at Chennai and report before the Inspector of Police, Flower Bazaar Police Station, Chennai at

10.30 a.m. every day, until further orders.

(iv)the respondent police is directed to ensure that there is no threat to the life and safety of the de-facto complainant. In the event of any threat, appropriate steps to be taken.

(v) the appellants shall not commit any offences of similar nature;

(vi)the appellants shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(vii)the appellants shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(viii) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the appellants in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the appellants 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];

(ix)i