Kumar v. State Rep By. The Station House Officer,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14-05-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

1. Kumar

2. Vijay ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep by.

The Station House Officer, Neyveli Thermal Police Station, Cuddalore District.

(Crime. No. 36 of 2026).

..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, praying to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused (A-2 and 3) on bail in the event of their arrest connection with the Crime No. 36 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent Police and thus render Justice. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.K.Gandhi Kumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Balaji Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioners who apprehend arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2) and 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 in Crime No. 36 of 2026, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant, Rajesh Kanna, works as a Manager in the TPS-I Expansion, Ash Handling System Section of NLC India Limited, Neyveli. On 23.02.2026, while conducting a routine inspection along with his colleague, they noticed that an unidentified group of persons had attempted to cut and remove approximately 50 meters of operational iron pipeline near the NNTP Bunker Gate bridge using gas cutting equipment. Based on his complaint, an FIR was registered. Hence the case. 3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons, their names are not mentioned in the FIR, and they have been falsely implicated solely based on the confession statement of the co-accused Siva (A-1).

He further submitted that this is the second anticipatory bail petition before this Court, the previous application in Crl.O.P. No. 5575 of 2026 having been dismissed on 04.03.2026. He stated that the coaccused have already been released on bail, and specifically, Accused No. 3 has already been arrested and subsequently released on bail. He further submitted that there is no previous case pending against the petitioners and they are ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed anticipatory bail for the petitioners.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the case

involves theft of public infrastructure property belonging to NLC India Limited. However, he conceded that the petitioners' names were not in the FIR, the coaccused are out on bail, and that no previous case is pending against the petitioners. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioners.

5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6.Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the nature of offences, the fact that the petitioners were implicated solely based on a co-accused confession, the fact that the co-accused have already been released on bail, and also the fact that no previous case is pending against the petitioners, I am 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 their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each 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 on every Saturday at 10.00 a.m for a period of four weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[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 them 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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 BNSS, 2023.

14-05-2026 SHA

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 District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli.

2.The Station House Officer, Neyveli Thermal Police Station, Cuddalore District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

P.DHANABAL, J.

SHA 14-05-2026