Gokul v. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14.05.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL Gokul, S/o.Jothi ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, M-3 Puzhal Police Station, Chennai.

Crime No.150 of 2026.

... Respondent Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest, pending investigation in Crime No.150 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Joy Balaji For Respondent : Mr.S.Balaji Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 296(b), Page No.1 of 6

115(2), 308(2) and 351(2) of BNS in Crime No.150 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 17.02.2026 at about 06.00 p.m., the petitioner, along with other accused, waylaid the defacto complainant by driving their vehicle rashly, entered into an altercation with the defacto complainant, snatched mobile phone, laptop, laptop charger, and Mahendra Bolero Vehicle keys, and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case, solely based on the alleged confession made by the co-accused and his name does not find place in the FIR. He further submitted that the co-accused has been granted bail and that the subject properties have been recovered. He also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Page No.2 of 6

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that though there are no previous cases pending against the petitioner, the offences committed by the petitioner are of heinous in nature and if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he may abscond and commit similar offences in the future. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, nature of offences, and also considering the fact that there are no previous cases pending against the petitioner and that the subject properties have been recovered and further taking note of the fact that the co-accused has been granted bail and the petitioner has been implicated in this case based on the confession statement of the co-accused, I am 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 Page No.3 of 6

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Madhavaram, 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;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

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

[e] the petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.

[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 Page No.4 of 6

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 sp To 1.

The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Madhavaram.

2.

The Inspector of Police, M-3 Puzhal Police Station, Chennai.

3.

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Page No.5 of 6

P.DHANABAL , J.

sp 14.05.2026 Page No.6 of 6