Sakthivel v. The State Represented By, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Sakthivel .. Petitioner in all Crl.OP.'s Vs.
State rep. by The Inspector of Police Denkanikottai Police Station Krishnagiri District Crime No. 29 of 2025 ... Respondent in Crl.O.P.No.12512 of 2025 State rep. by The Inspector of Police Denkanikottai Police Station Krishnagiri District Crime No. 26 of 2025 ... Respondent in Crl.O.P.No.12515 of 2025 State rep. by The Inspector of Police Denkanikottai Police Station Krishnagiri District Crime No. 28 of 2025 ... Respondent in Crl.O.P.No.12516 of 2025 State rep. by The Inspector of Police Denkanikottai Police Station Krishnagiri District Crime No. 27 of 2025 ... Respondent in Crl.O.P.No.12517 of 2025 PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.12512 of 2025 : Criminal Original Petition filed under 1/6
Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police in Crime No. 29 of 2025 on the file of respondent police. PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.12515 of 2025 : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police in Crime No. 26 of 2025 on the file of respondent police. PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.12516 of 2025 : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police in Crime No. 28 of 2025 on the file of respondent police. PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.
12517 of 2025 : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police in Crime No. 27 of 2025 on the file of respondent police.
MrJ.Pradeep For Respondent :
Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl.side) 2/6
COMMON O R D E R The petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 303(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.29, 26, 28 and 27 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that defacto complainant in all the cases have parked their vehicle bearing registration Nos. TN-70-S-0405, TN-70AR-7798, KA-05-JC-6195 in front of their residence and the same were found missing. Hence, the case.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.30 of 2025 in Crl.O.P.No.12518 of 2025 on 02.07.2025 by this Court. The petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in all the cases on the same day based on the confession. It is his contention that since this Court had earlier granted anticipatory bail in one case, the same benefit would be extended to other cases also. He submits that he has been falsely implicated in this case based on the confession of co-accused. He also submits that the petitioner has been engaged in buying and selling of old bikes, for that reason, he 3/6
has made as an accused. 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 anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police, strongly opposed the contentions of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner, along with other accused, was involved in the theft of two wheelers. The petitioner is said to be an expert in dismantling, re- shaping and reselling the stolen vehicles in the market from which all the accused were benefited. He submits that totally 13 bikes were stolen out of which six have been recovered while seven bikes were yet to be recovered. The confession of the other accused confirms that petitioner is in possession of remaining seven bikes. Therefore, the petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary in this case for the purpose of investigation. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 4/6
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, submissions made by the learned counsels on either side, considering the fact that seven stolen vehicles were yet to be recovered and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petitions stands dismissed. 16.07.2025 nr To
1. The Inspector of Police Denkanikottai Police Station Krishnagiri District
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
5/6
nr 16.07.2025 6/6