Aravind v. State Of Tamilnadu, Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06-05-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Aravind S/o.Venkatesan, No.13, New Street, Valli Maniyam, Thiruporur, Kancheepuram - 603 110.

..Petitioner(s) Vs State of Tamilnadu, Rep by The Inspector of Police Meenambakkam Police Station, Cr.No.22 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.22 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police. For Petitioner(s):

Mr. Madhan Kumar.M For Respondent(s):

Mr.V.J.Priyadarsana Government Advocate (Crl. side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.04.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 127(2), 296(b), 310(2), 351(3) of BNS 2023 , in Crime No.22 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is working as food

delivery boy. On the pretext of deliver food item, the petitioner and other accused person have made the defacto complainant to be present in a secluded place, where the petitioner along with other accused restrained him and extorted a sum of Rs.2650/- through Gpay and snatched his mobile phone and silver chain. Since the co-accused have attacked him with beer bottle thereby caused head injuries and also threatened him with dire consequences. Based on the allegation, the above case has been registered against the petitioner and others.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is merely a friend of the co-accused and he would further submit that the petitioner was arrested and is in judicial custody from 04.04.2026. Hence, seeks for bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that he is involved in one another previous case. At this stage, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is high chance of absconding from the case, tampering of the prosecution witnesses. Hence, vehemently opposed the bail.

5.Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances, nature and gravity of offences, the manner in which the offence alleged to have taken place, the stage of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed.

06-05-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order rli To

1. The Inspector of Police Meenambakkam Police Station,

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

rli 06-05-2026