Raju@ Govindaraju v. State By Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Raju@ Govindaraju ..Petitioner Vs State by Inspector of Police, Veppamkuppam Police Station, Vellore District.

[Crime No. 16 of 2026] ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest by the respondent police in Crime No. 16/2026 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner:

Mr. Thirumoorthy D For Respondent:

Ms.R.S.Indira Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 306 of BNS Act, 2023 [381 of IPC], in Crime No.16 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that this petitioner/A2 along with A1 had taken the lorry belonging to the defacto complainant for the purpose of

delivering rice in a mill situated at Manali. It is alleged that after delivering the rice, the petitioner and other co-accused have received a sum of Rs.60,000/- as delivery charges and not paid the money and also not returned the lorry to the petitioner and thereby cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, the case. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the 3rd anticipatory bail application. He further submits the petitioner is no way connected to this case and has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submits that the stolen lorry is yet to be recovered. She further submits that there are no previous cases against the petitioner. However, she vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available. 6.Considering the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and noting that there is no change in circumstances since

the earlier dismissal, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 09-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order VEDA To 1.Inspector of Police, Veppamkuppam Police Station, Vellore District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

VEDA 09-06-2026