Gowtham @ Naveen v. State Rep. By Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Gowtham @ Naveen S/o Nandhagopal, No.64, Arunthathipuram, Ariyankuppam, Pondicherry - 605007 ..Petitioner(s) Vs State represented by:

The Inspector of Police Villupuram Town Police Station, Villupuram district.

[Crime No.65 of 2026] ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: The Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr. No.65 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner(s):

M/S. G.Saravanabhavan For Respondent(s):

MR.S.VINOTH KUMAR, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL SIDE)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.03.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 238, 310(2), 310(4) and 61(2) of B.N.S. in Crime No.65 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.03.2026 at around 11.23 a.m., when the defecto complainant was on the way to Villupuram Railway Station in his two wheeler to catch a train to Chennai, near the Vinayagar Temple on the Villupuram Railway Road, two persons had waylaid the defacto complainant and three more accused who came in an another two wheeler snatched the bag containing 4.106 kgs of gold jewellery and cash of Rs.5,50,000/- from the defacto complainant. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the occurrence took place on 03.03.2026 and according to the prosecution, the defacto complainant is a Gold Smith, who had taken 1.09 kgs of gold bars from Chennai to Villupuram to make it as gold jewels and after converting the gold bars into gold ornaments, when he wanted to return to Chennai through train and while he was coming to Railway station in a two wheeler, he was waylaid by two persons and thereafter, another three persons joined and took away the bag containing gold ornaments from the defacto complainant. The learned petitioner counsel would further submit that the petitioner has no way connected with the offences as alleged by the prosecution. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no previous antecedents and hence prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent police would fairly submit that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner. However, out of the snatched amount of Rs.5,50,000/-, only Rs.2,10,000/- was recovered and the remaining amount is yet to be recovered. He would further fairly submit that the gold ornaments weighing about 4.106 kgs have been recovered. Further he would fairly submit that major portion of investigation has been completed.

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

6. Therefore, taking into consideration of the totality of circumstances, considering the long incarceration of the petitioner since 07.03.2026 and the recovery of gold ornaments and a portion of money, upon the further fact that the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents and major portion of investigation has been completed, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to the following stringent conditions:

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Villupuram and on further conditions that:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioner shall sign before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. and 5.30 p.m. for a period of 30 days and thereafter to appear before the investigation officer as and when required for interrogation. [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[e] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283]:

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

21-04-2026 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.

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate-I, Villupuram.

2. The Inspector of Police,Villupuram Town Police Station, Villupuram district.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Cuddalore.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

MJS 21-04-2026