N.Senthil Adhiban v. State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By The Superintendent Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.05.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR N.Senthil Athiban ... Petitioner Vs.
1. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by The Superintendent of Police, O/o. Superintendent of Police, Anantapuram-515 001.
2. The Inspector of Police, KIA Police Station, KIA Industrial Area, Sri Sathya Sai District, Andhra Pradesh.
3. The Inspector of Police, K-1, Sembium Police Station, Sembium, Chennai.
... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.24 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
1/7
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sathish Kumar For Respondents : Mr..V.J.Priyadarsanas Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 61(1) of BNS in Crime No.24 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant one Sai Nandhan, Head of Production Management, KIA India Pvt Ltd., is that upon stock verification during the month of January 2025, it came to the notice that certain engines were found missing from the stock. Upon further verification of internal records, engine ship gate entry data, CCTv Camera footages and other relevant records, it came to light that, some suspicious vehicles came in and out while an employee of Kia by name Mr.Patan Saleem was on duty and vehicle went outward on with fake gate passes and fake way bills. Hence the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and a false complaint has been given as against him and the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition imposed by 2/7
this Court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the case of the prosecution and opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priya Indoria vs. State of Karnataka and Others, reported in (2024) 4 SCC 749, wherein it has been held as follows: "93. In view of what we have discussed above, we are of the view that considering the constitutional imperative of protecting a citizen's right to life, personal liberty and dignity, the High Court or the Court of Session could grant limited anticipatory bail in the form of an interim protection under Section 438 of CrPC in the interest of justice with respect to an FIR registered outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court, and subject to the following conditions:
93.1. Prior to passing an order of limited anticipatory bail, the investigating officer and public prosecutor who are seized of the FIR shall be issued notice on the first date of the hearing, though the Court in an appropriate case would have the discretion to grant interim anticipatory bail.
93.2. The order of grant of limited anticipatory bail must record reasons as to why the applicant apprehends an inter-state arrest and the impact of such grant of limited anticipatory bail or interim protection, as the case may be, on the status of the investigation. 3/7
93.3. The jurisdiction in which the cognizance of the offence has been taken does not exclude the said offence from the scope of anticipatory bail by way of a State Amendment to Section 438 of CrPC. 93.4. The applicant for anticipatory bail must satisfy the Court regarding his inability to seek anticipatory bail from the Court which has the territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. The grounds raised by the applicant may be - (a). a reasonable and immediate threat to life, personal liberty and bodily harm in the jurisdiction where the FIR is registered; (b). the apprehension of violation of right to liberty or impediments owing to arbitrariness;
(c). the medical status/disability of the person seeking extraterritorial limited anticipatory bail."
6. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to grant interim interstate anticipatory bail for a period of four weeks. Accordingly, interim interstate anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner for a period of four weeks, on condition that the petitioner shall surrender before the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready and 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 said learned 4/7
Magistrate. Further, within two weeks from the date of execution of bail bond, the petitioner shall approach the competent Court and seek for appropriate relief. Failure to comply with the time lines within the fixed period entitles cancellation of the order granted.
7. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.
22.05.2025 Vv To
1. The V Metropolitan Magistrate , Egmore, Chennai-15 The Superintendent of Police, O/o. Superintendent of Police, Anantapuram-515 001.
2. The Inspector of Police, KIA Police Station, KIA Industrial Area, Sri Sathya Sai District, Andhra Pradesh.
3. The Inspector of Police, K-1, Sembium Police Station, Sembium, Chennai.
4.The Public Prosecutor,High Court of Madras. 5/7
N.SENTHILKUMAR ,J.
Vv Crl. O.P. No.14959 of 2025 6/7
22.05.2025 7/7