Suriya Prakash v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.06.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP NO.13252 of 2025 Suriya Prakash Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Villupuram Taluk Police Station, Villupuram . (Cr. No 838 of 2024) Respondent(s) Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.838 of 2024 pending on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.C.Ganesh Pandian For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Vinotharaj Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 331 (3), 305 (a) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.838 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

Page No.1 of 7

2.The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner along with other accused had committed theft of 4 sovereigns of gold jewels, Wrist Watch and cash of Rs.1500/-. Hence the case.

3.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case.

He also submitted that co-accused has been granted bail in Crl.M.P.No.87 of 2025 on 21.01.2025 and hence custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner had committed theft of 4 sovereigns of gold jewels, Wrist Watch and cash of Rs.1500/-. He further submits that 3 sovereigns of Gold jewels has been recovered. Petitioner has no bad antecedents. Page No.2 of 7

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record.

6.Considering the nature of the allegations, the fact that petitioner has no bad antecedents and the fact that co-accused has been granted bail and since, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 7.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Villupuram, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the Page No.3 of 7

learned Magistrate concerned, and on proof of payment of deposits, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

[a] if the petitioner fails to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, this Order shall stand automatically cancelled; [b] The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the Application for Suretyship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;

[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of three weeks; thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [d] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the defacto complainant and witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police office as and when required; [f] the petitioner to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for Police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he shall comply to Page No.4 of 7

the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard; [g] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[h] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the 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)AIR SCW 5560];

[i] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

10.06.2025 ep Page No.5 of 7

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

ep To:

1.The Inspector of Police, Villupuram Taluk Police Station, Villupuram . 2.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Villupuram.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court Madras.

CRL.OP.No.13252 of 2025 Page No.6 of 7

10.06.2025 Page No.7 of 7