Venkat Prabhu v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN Venkat Prabhu ..Petitioner Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Inspector of Police, Perur Police Station, Coimbatore - 641010.

Crime No.341/2025.

..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to release the petitioner on bail in Crime No.341 of 2025 pending on the file of the respondent police herein. For Petitioner:

Mr.E.Dhinesh For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 26.10.2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 310(2) and 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Section 395 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860), in Crime No.341 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, who became acquainted with one Dharma during his earlier incarceration, was

induced to invest in a gold business on the promise of procuring gold at a lower price. Based on such representation, the defacto complainant arranged Rs.50 lakhs and travelled to Coimbatore. Thereafter, on 18.10.2025, while proceeding with Dharma and others, the cash was transferred and at a secluded place, a group of persons arrived and took away the money and assaulted Dharma. The defacto complainant escaped and later lodged a complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the investigation has already been completed and charge sheet has been filed. The learned counsel would submit that the recovery in this case is only a meagre amount and that other co-accused have already been granted bail by this Court. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for a considerable period. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is involved in serious offences and has got seven previous cases, including robbery cases. It is further submitted that the petitioner is also involved in NDPS cases and Arms Act cases. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

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

6. Though it is contended that other co-accused have been granted bail and that the recovery is meagre, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner cannot be ignored. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), the petitioner has been involved in several previous cases including robbery, NDPS and Arms Act cases. Taking into consideration the past conduct of the petitioner and the nature of allegations, this Court is of the view that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of him indulging in similar offences.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 30-04-2026 NSL To

1. The Inspector of Police, Perur Police Station, Coimbatore - 641010.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

NSL 30-04-2026