Kartikraja Nagaraj v. The State Rep. By Its The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04-03-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C. KUMARAPPAN CRL OP NO.5473 of 2026 Kartikraja Nagaraj ... Petitioner/ Accused Vs The State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Palladam Police Station.

(Crime No.1038 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to grant bail to the petitioner/accused in S.C.No.362 of 2025 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Case under SC/ST Act, Tiruppur.

For Petitioner(s) :

Mr. D. Nandhagopal For Respondent(s) :

Mr. S. Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ******* 1/4

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.10.2025 for the alleged offence under Sections 331(3), 305(a), 3(5) and 111(2)(b) of BNS in S.C.No.362 of 2025 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Case under SC/ST Act, Tiruppur, seeks bail. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner herein along with other accused had broke open the defacto complainant's house and committed theft of 3 sovereigns of gold, two pairs of silver anklet and Rs.3,70,000/- cash. Hence, this case.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the jewels and cash stolen in this case has already been recovered; that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 15.10.2025 and the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner. 4.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing 2/4

for the Respondent Police while opposing the bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the investigation of this case was completed and charged sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced; that the petitioner has two previous cases and if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it would cause delay in the trial process. 5.

I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record. 6.

From the submissions made by the learned counsels on either side, it is seen that the petitioner has involved in house breaking and he has two previous cases. Though, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the stolen articles in this case were already recovered, the contention raised by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent cannot be outrightly rejected, since the petitioner herein is having bad antecedents and if he is enlarged on bail, there is possibility that he would commit similar offence and hamper the trial process, and also considering the gravity of the offence and the fear caused in the society by these kind of crimes, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. C. KUMARAPPAN , J.

3/4

stn 7.

Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 04.03.2026 stn To

1. The Inspector of Police, Palladam Police Station.

(Crime No.1038 of 2025)

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras Crl.O.P. No.5473 of 2026 4/4