Parvathi v. State Represented By The Sub-Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14-05-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Parvathi W/o. Muthu, No. 51, B-Block, Nemili, Kancheepuram 602 105.

..Petitioner Vs State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sriperumbudur Police Station, Kancheepuram District.

(Crime No. 601 of 2025) ..Respondent To enlarge the Petitioner/ Accused on Bail in the event of arrest in connection with the F.I.R. in Crime No. 601 of 2025, on the file of the Respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.G.Sambath Kumar For Respondent :

Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner / Accused-3, who apprehends arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 303(2) of B.N.S. in connection with the case in Crime No.601 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is working as a Technician in Powerlink Airtel and used to maintain the Mobile Towers.

On 15.10.2025, when he was on his usual maintenance duty, he came to know that 24 numbers of Amaraja (2 Volt) Battery Cells found missing. Hence, he lodged a complainat on 16.10.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition to be imposed and he is also ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), reiterated the prosecution case and on instructions, would submit that there are totally eight accused and the petitioner is arrayed as the third accused. It is alleged that the petitioner committed a theft of 24 Batteries (two Volt) from cell towers. The said stolen properties have not yet been recovered. It is further submitted that the petitioner has three previous cases of similar nature registered against him. Hence, he strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the nature of offences, the fact that the petitioner has been impleaded only on suspicion, though he has three previous cases, in all cases, bail was granted to him, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner on certain 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 of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur 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 respondent Police or the Police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further conditions that:

[a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity. [c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., for four weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation by the respondent police.

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [f] 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].

[g] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

14-05-2026 nl Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order 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, Sriperumbudur.

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sriperumbudur Police Station, Kancheepuram District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras

P.DHANABAL, J.

nl 14-05-2026