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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Durai ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State rep by, Inspector of Police, Palladam Police Station, Tiruppur District.

Crime No.77/2026 ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to enlarge the Bail to the petitioner in connection with the C.C.No.148 of 2026 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Palladam.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.G.Sujith For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.02.2026 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 331(4) and 305(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, in Crime No.77 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner broke open the premises of the defacto complainant's electrical shop and committed theft of batteries kept inside the shop. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent, has been falsely implicated in the present case, and has no connection with the alleged offences. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in continuous judicial custody since 25.02.2026 and therefore, prayed for the grant of bail.

4. The said contention was strongly opposed by the learned Government Counsel (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent, who reiterated the case of the prosecution. He submitted that the petitioner deliberately targeted a commercial establishment by breaking it open to commit theft. He further brought to the attention of this Court that the petitioner is a habitual offender with 5 previous cases of a similar nature pending against him, and if he is enlarged on bail at this stage, there is every possibility of recidivism.

5. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the submissions made by the learned Government Counsel, this Court is of the opinion that the offence involves a planned house-breaking and theft of

commercial establishments. Furthermore, the petitioner's criminal antecedents of a similar nature demonstrates that he is a repeat offender, raising a strong and undeniable possibility of recidivism if released. Enlarging the petitioner on bail at this juncture would pose a threat to the safety of commercial establishments and disrupt the trial proceedings. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 10-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Jeni To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, Tiruppur. 2.The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Palladam.

3.The Inspector of Police, Palladam Police Station, Tiruppur District. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

Jeni 10-06-2026