Riku Amar Singh Chauhan v. State Rep.By Its, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Riku Amar Singh Chauhan S/o. Vithal Panaji Patel, No.43, Dhundhra, Kasganji, Uttar Pradesh - 207 246.

2. Abishek Singh S/o. Harendra Singh, No.67, Vihar, Khoda Colony, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh - 201 010.

3. Yogesh Kumar S/o. Rajeev Singh, No.87, Baripura, Budaun, Uttar Pradesh - 243 725.

..Petitioner(s) Vs State represented by its:

The Inspector of Police, S4, Nandambakkam Police Station, Chennai.

Cr.No.8 of 2026.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER: The Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. praying to enlarge the petitioners / Accused on bail pending investigation in Cr.No.8 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner(s):

M/S. L.Rakesh For Respondent(s):

Mr. S. Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Criminal side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.01.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 331(4) and 305 of B.N.S. in Cr. No.8 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons broke open the shop run by the defacto complainant in the name of JSM Forex Money Exchange and had taken away Rs.25,000/- from the locker and hence the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that false case has been foisted against the petitioners, the petitioners are under incarceration since 14.01.2026 and they are ready and willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court and hence prayed for grant of bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and strongly opposed to enlarge the petitioners on bail on the ground that the petitioners belong to the State of Uttar Pradesh and the 1st petitioner has 12 previous cases and hence if they are enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of absconding.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6. The learned Government Advocate strongly opposed the bail application stating that the petitioners belong to the native of Uttar Pradesh and if they are enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of absconding and apart from that, as against the 1st petitioner, there are about 12 previous cases and the nature of allegations are serious in nature as they joined together, entered into the defacto complainant's shop and looted Rs.25,000/-. Therefore, considering the nature of allegations, nativity of the petitioners as they belong to Uttar Pradesh, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate, though investigation is over and the trial is on, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there is every possibility for delaying the trial proceedings. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail at this stage.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 25-03-2026 MJS Note:

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

MJS To

1. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

2. The Inspector of Police, S4, Nandambakkam Police Station, Chennai. 25-03-2026