Gowtham 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 Gowtham ... Petitioner/ Accused No.2 Vs.

The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, K-2, Ayanavaram Police Station, Chennai.

(Crime No.140 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 his arrest by the respondent police concerned in Crime No.140 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr. R. Muthukumar 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 191(2), 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 311, 324(4), 125 and 351(3) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in Crime No.140 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that on 04.04.2025 at about 6:30 a.m., the petitioner along with other accused went to the restaurant where the defacto complainant is working as a cashier, after taking food, they refused to pay for the same and picked up a wordy quarrel with the defacto complainant, abused him and threatened him of dire consequences; and that thereafter, robbed a sum of Rs.1,300/- at knife point from the defacto complainant. Hence, this case.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution; that the petitioner along with his friends went to the restaurant and questioned about the quality 2/4

of the food served to them, thereby the dispute arose and a false complaint has been lodged against them; 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 respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and on instruction submitted that the petitioner is having 10 previous cases; 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 antecedents 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, K-2, Ayanavaram Police Station, Chennai.

(Crime No.140 of 2025)

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