Sathish v. State, Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 23.06.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.16558 of 2025

1. Sathish

2. Vijayimmanvel ... Petitioners Vs.

State represented by, The Inspector of Police, G-5, Secretariat Colony Police Station, Chennai - 600 010.

(Crime No.111 of 2025) ... Respondent Prayer : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.111 of 2025 pending on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioners : Mr.A.Tamilselvan For Respondent : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 115(2), 125, 324(2), 311, 351(3) of BNS in Crime No.111 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. Page No.1 of 4

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused had refused to pay the bill in the de facto complainant's shop and when the de facto complainant insisted them to pay, the accused abused him and by threatening him at knife point, robbed a sum of Rs.2200/-. Hence the case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case since they have several previous cases. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners stating that the petitioners are habitual offenders.. He further submitted that 19 previous cases are pending against the first petitioner/A3 and in respect of the second petitioner, seven previous cases are pending.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the nature of allegation and the previous antecedents of the petitioners and also considering that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is very much required, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Page No.2 of 4

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 23.06.2025 ham To To

1. The II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

2. The Inspector of Police, G-5, Secretariat Colony Police Station, Chennai - 600 010.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Page No.3 of 4

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN , J.

ham Crl.O.P.No.16558 of 2025 23.06.2025 1/2 Page No.4 of 4