Gowtham @ Chocolate Appu v. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14-05-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
1. Gowtham @ Chocolate Appu S/o. Velu, No 25 6th Street, K M Garden, Pulianthope, Chennai - 600 012.
2. Sakthi Priyan @ Sakthi S/o.Raju, No 25, 6th Street, K M Garden, Pulianthope, Chennai- 600 012.
3. AjithKumar, S/o.Shankar, No 25 6th Street K M Garden Pulianthope Chennai - 600 012.
4. Gowtham, S/o. Ravi, No.6, K M Garden, Pulianthope, Chennai- 600 012.
5. Surya, S/o.Ansar No 55 7th Street K M GardenPulianthope Chennai
6. Ragul S/o.Sudhakar, No.8, Sivarajapuram 1st Street, Pulianthope, Chennai - 600 012.
..Petitioner(s) Vs
State Rep. by The Inspector of Police P-1, Pulianthope Police Station, Chennai.
Crime No. 143/2026 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER:-The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S, to enlarge the Petitioners on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.143 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police P-1 Pulianthope Police Station, Chennai, pending investigation. For Petitioner(s):
Mr.C.Raja For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Balaji Governemnt Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioners / Accused, who apprehend arrest in the hands of the respondent Police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 96(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS in connection with the Cr. No.143 of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that while the defacto complainant was returning to his home from work, near to the Astapujam Road, some known persons to the defacto complainant stopped him and asked for money. Since he refused to give money, they attacked the defacto complainant with deadly weapons. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners were never indulged in any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and the respondent has falsely implicated the petitioners in the present case and hence the petitioners may be released on anticipatory bail.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that the 1st petitioner has five previous cases which are not similar in nature and in all those cases, the 1st petitioner was granted bail. As far as the petitioner 2 to 6 are concerned there is no previous case pending against them and hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions on either side, considering the nature of offences, considering the fact that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner 2 to 6 and the 1st petitioner has five previous cases which are not similar in nature and in all those cases, bail was granted to the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioners are 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 X Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond each for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:
[a] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m, until further orders;
[b] the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; [c] the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;
[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] 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].
[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under
Section 269 B.N.S.2023.
14-05-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order rst 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 official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.
To:- 1.The X Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
3.The Inspector of Police, P-1, Pulianthope Police Station, Chennai.
P.DHANABAL J.
rst 14-05-2026