Siva Ganapathy v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Siva Ganapathy ..Petitioner Vs State rep.by its, The Inspector of Police, Perur Police Station, Coimbatore District.

[Crime No.358 of 2026] ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in crime no.358 of 2025 on the file of the respondent. For Petitioner:

Mr. W.Camyles Gandhi For Respondent:

Ms.R.S.Indira Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 351(3) and 303(2) of BNS in Crime No.358 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner entered into the place of the de facto complainant in intoxicated manner and asked for money. When

the de facto complainant refused, the petitioner attacked the de facto complainant with bricks and wooden stick and snatched two sovereigns of gold bracelet from him and abused in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. 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 submitted that the petitioner has snatched 2 sovereigns of gold jewelry and de facto complainant also sustained serious injury. He further submitted that the stolen property is not yet recovered. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the

submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, as rightly contended by the learned Govt Advocate (Crl.Side), if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it would become too difficult for the respondent police to recover the stolen property. Hence Considering the pendency of the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 18-06-2026 SHL To 1.The Inspector of Police, Perur Police Station, Coimbatore District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

SHL 18-06-2026