Raju @ Govindaraju v. State By Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Raju @ Govindaraju S/o.Venkatesh, No.66, 2nd Right Cross, Puttappa Colony, BEML Layout, Bangalore.
..Petitioner(s) Vs State by Inspector of Police Veppamkuppam Police Station, Vellore District.
Crime No. 16 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, praying to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of arrest by the respondent police in Crime. No.16/2026 on the file of the respondent police and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):
Mr. D.Thirumoorthy For Respondent(s):
Mr.P.Dhileepan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 306 of BNS Act, 2023 ( 381 of IPC) in Crime No.16 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that this petitioner/A2 along with accused had taken the lorry belonging to the defacto complainant for the purpose of delivering rice in a mill situated at Manali. It is alleged that after delivering the rice the petitioner and other co-accused have received Rs.60,000/- as delivery charges and not paid the money and also not returned the lorry to the petitioner and thereby cheated the defacto complainant. Hence the case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this is the second anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner used to supply the rice to the defacto complainant, and for such supply, a sum of Rs.60,000/- was received, and apart from that, he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any other stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that apart from a sum of Rs.60,000/-, the petitioner had also taken a lorry of the defacto complainant, and the same has not been returned so far. He further submitted that there is
no previous case against the petitioner. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), it is seen that the petitioner has no bad antecedents. However the vehicle has not been recovered so far. Hence this Court is of the firm view that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, the same would seriously cause prejudice to the prosecution case. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 30-03-2026 DRL To
1. The Inspector of Police Veppamkuppam Police Station, Vellore District.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
DRL 30-03-2026