Nithish v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 01-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Nithish S/o. Nagaraj No 41,Kottai Mariyamman koil Street, Kaspa, Gandhi Nagar, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police Vellore North Crime police station, Vellore District.

Crime No.25 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of arrest on connection with Crime No. 25 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of Respondent police.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr. D.Balaji For Respondent(s):

MR.S.YOGARAJA SEKAR, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE )

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Section 303(2) of BNS, in Crime No.25 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had stolen the motorcycle belonging to the defacto complainant and fled away from the scene of occurrence. Hence, a case has been registered against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that that though the occurrence took place in March 2026, the FIR came to be registered only on 30.04.2026. He further submitted that the petitioner's name does not find place in the FIR and he has been described only as an identifiable person and not as a named accused. He further contended that, though the vehicle was taken forcibly, the defacto complainant had not lodged any complaint for nearly one month. He further submitted that since, the petitioner has got four previous cases, the respondent police have falsely implicated him in the present case. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that there are about four previous cases similar in nature against the petitioner and the vehicle was recovered from the custody of the petitioner.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

6. Considering the totality of the circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has four previous cases, notwithstanding the contention that his name does not find a place in the FIR, according to the prosecution, the vehicle was recovered from the custody of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner appears to be necessary for further investigation. Hence, this petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 01-06-2026 DRL To 1.The Inspector of Police Vellore North Crime police station, Vellore District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

DRL 01-06-2026