Kamaraj v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Kamaraj ..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Venganur Police Station, Ariyalur District.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest pending investigation in Crime No.8 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police namely the Inspector of Police Venganur Police, Ariyalur District. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.A V Raja For Respondent(s):

Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 229 of BNS Act, 2023, in Crime No.8 of 2026 seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the brother of the defacto complainant, and two lorries were handed over to him for using them for business purposes and for earning income for the family. However, the petitioner herein sold one lorry and paid Rs.15 lakhs, and the remaining money was misappropriated by him. Subsequently it was found that the other lorry was involved in a criminal case and, after the lorry was released from the Court, the same is now in the possession of the petitioner and has not come forward handed over to the defacto complainant when he asked for its return. Hence, the case. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the brother of the defacto complainant and that, due to family issues, the vehicles were not handed over to the defacto complainant. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate for the investigation. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution and submitted that it is a case of breach of trust. The properties were vested with the petitioner herein for the purpose of running the business and earning income for the family. However, the petitioner has sold one lorry, and the other lorry is also in his possession, and he has refused to hand over same to the defacto complainant.

5.Considering the fact that the petitioner is in possession of one lorry worth

nearly Rs.25 lakhs, and though it is stated that the petitioner has refused to hand over the lorry to the defacto complainant. It is also stated that the defacto complainant demanded the return of the lorry for the purpose of taking his treatment, and the same has not been heeded, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 12-02-2026 GBI To 1.State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Venganur Police Station, Ariyalur District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

GBI 12-02-2026