Srikanth v. The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Srikanth ..Petitioner(s) Vs The Inspector of Police P2 Otteri Police Station, Chennai.

Cr.No. 43 of 2026.

..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No. 43 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.R.Vinothkumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 02.02.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 125, 309(6), 351(3) and 311 of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.43 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2.It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner along with other accused threatened the de facto complainant and forcibly took away a sum of

Rs.4,000/- and the cell phone from the de facto complainant and fled away from the scene of occurrence. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected to this case. He further submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 02.02.2026. Hence, he seeks this Court to grant bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) while opposing grant of bail to the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has got four previous cases registered against him out of which two of them are under NDPS Act. He further submits that the investigation is still pending and if the petitioner is granted bail, he may abscond and tamper the witnesses. 5.I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6.

From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), it is seen that there are four previous cases against the petitioner and out of which two of them are under NDPS Act. Hence, this Court is of the view that, whenever the petitioner was granted bail he has misused the same.

nature. It is also seen from the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that the investigation is still pending and this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required and accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed.

09-03-2026 rap To

1. The X Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai.

2. The Inspector of Police P2 Otteri Police Station, Chennai.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

rap 09-03-2026