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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.06.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR Sujithra ... Petitioner/ Accused Vs.

The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, M3 Puzhal Police Station, Chennai.

(Crime No.33 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest by the respondent police concerned in Crime No.33 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr. S. Karthick For Respondent : Mr. R. Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ****** 1/4

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 331(4) (457 of IPC) and 305 (380 of IPC) of BNS in Crime No.33 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and other accused were involved in theft of 30 grams of gold jewels and 750 grams of silver articles from the defacto complainant's house. Hence, this case. 3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution; that since the petitioner's husband was arrested in this case, the petitioner was also falsely implicated; and that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and sought for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.

Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the 2/4

respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and on instruction submitted that the petitioner along with her husband and other accused have committed theft of 30 grams of gold jewels and 750 grams of silver articles; that the petitioner is arrayed as A3 in this case and has got one previous case of similar nature; that only 12 grams of gold jewels have been recovered and the balance gold and silver articles are yet to be recovered; and that the investigation is pending and opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record.

6.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegation against the petitioner, the submissions made by the learned counsels on either side, the fact that the petitioner has bad antecedent of similar nature and since further gold and silver articles are yet to be recovered and the investigation is pending, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

3/4

M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

stn 7.

Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. 19.06.2025 stn To

1. The Inspector of Police, M3 Puzhal Police Station, Chennai.

(Crime No.33 of 2025)

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 4/4