C.Sathiyaraj v. State Rep.By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN C.Sathiyaraj ... Petitioner/A5 Vs.

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thalaivasal Police Station, Salem District.

... Respondent (Crime No.425 of 2025) 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.425 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

M/s.R.Thulasi For Respondent :

Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 303(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.425 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other 1/4

accused was involved in stealing eight cows belonging to the defacto complainant, worth about Rs.1,60,000/-. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation and that co-accused has already been released on anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.OP.No.4191 of 2026, dated 19.02.2026 and on the ground of parity, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that the petitioner has abetted in commission of theft. He would further submit that no doubt, the co-accused has been released on anticipatory bail however, he would submit that since the petitioner has involved in commission of theft, if he is enlarged on bail there is every likelihood to commit similar offence in future. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

2/4

5. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. The submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) is well inherited and this Court is of the view that the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 11.03.2026 ssi To:

1.The Inspector of Police, Thalaivasal Police Station, Salem District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN,J., ssi 3/4

11.03.2026 4/4