Palani @ Pagalavan @ Sathishkumar v. State Rep By Its The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Palani @ Pagalavan @ Sathishkumar S/o. Mathayansettu, No. 501, E-5, Kalyanasundharamcolony, Jagir Chinna Ammapalaiyam, Salem District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep By its The Inspector of Police Sooramangalam Police Station, Salem District.

(Crime No.39 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioners on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 39 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent and thus render Justice. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.C.Deepak Kumar For Respondent(s):

Ms.R.S.Indira, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner/A3, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 309(4) and 311 of BNS in Crime No.39 of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.01.2026 the defacto complainant came from Namakkal to Chennai for work. Since there was no train available at that time, he went to a bar situated near the Railway Station known as Pudhu Road Bar, to consume alcohol. At about 01.00 p.m., while he was consuming alcohol inside the bar, three unknown persons including the petitioner came and sat near the defacto complainant and also consumed alcohol. Further, they have questioned the defacto complainant about his whereabouts and they have alleged to demand money from him. When the defacto complainant refused to give money, the petitioner along with others have snatched his silver chain and picked his ATM Card from his pocket . Further, they withdrew the money for a sum of Rs.3,000/- and threatened the complainant with a broken beer bottle with dire consequences. Hence, the present case.

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that there are three accused involved in this case and this Petitioner is arrayed as A3. The only overt act against this Petitioner is that he has picked the ATM Card from the

defacto complainant and forcibly collect the money from the ATM Machine. The major overt act is only against A1 and A2. He would further submit that A1 and A2 were enlarged on bail by the concerned Judicial Magistrate, which factum was fairly admitted by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side).

4. Though the co-accused were released on bail, considering the serious allegations against the petitioner is that he took the ATM Card and forcibly collected the money from the ATM Machine, this Court is of the firm view that if the Petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, it would embolden them to do the same kind of offences in future also.

5. Considering the nature of offence and seriousness of the allegations, this Court is of the firm view that the Petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 02-06-2026 Vv To

1. The Inspector of Police, Sooramangalam Police Station, Salem District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

VV 02-06-2026