Yuvaneswaran v. State, Represented 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 Yuvaneswaran ..Petitioner(s) Vs State, represented by, The Inspector of Police, Sholavaram Police Station, Tiruvallur District.

(Crime No.542 of 2025) .

..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, praying to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of their arrest concerned in Crime No.730 of 2025, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Sholavaram Police Station, Tiruvallur District on such terms and conditions and as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.M.Vetrivel For Respondent(s):

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

ORDER

The petitioner who apprehends arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 310(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (Corresponding Section 399 of IPC) in Crime No. 730 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 09.11.2025, the petitioner along with other co-accused individuals made preparations to commit dacoity. Based on a complaint lodged by the de facto complainant on the same day, the respondent police registered the First Information Report. Hence the case. 3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person, he neither abused nor assaulted the de facto complainant, and he has been falsely implicated with an ulterior motive. He further submitted that this is the first anticipatory bail petition and no similar petition is pending before any other court. He stated that the alleged occurrence took place on 09.11.2025 and the investigation might have been completed by this time.

He further submitted that the co-accused have already been arrested and released on bail, and while the petitioner has some previous cases pending against him, they are not of a similar nature and bail has already been granted to him in all of those cases. He further stated that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed anticipatory bail for the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the case involves a serious offense of preparation to commit dacoity and that the petitioner has some previous cases pending against him. However, he conceded

that the co-accused have already been released on bail and that the petitioner was granted bail in his previous cases. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner.

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 co-accused have already been arrested and released on bail, the substantial progress in the investigation since the date of the alleged occurrence on 09.11.2025, and also the fact that the petitioner's pending previous cases are of a different nature in which he has already been granted bail, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following 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 Court No. II, Ponneri 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

[a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00

a.m. for a period of thirty days (30 days) and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[b] the petitioner 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 petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

[d] the petitioner 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 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 Judicial Magistrate Court No. II, Ponneri . 2.The The Inspector of Police, Sholavaram Police Station, Tiruvallur District.

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

P.DHANABAL, J.

SHA 14-05-2026