Hashna Shifa G v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 14.07.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN Hashna Shifa ... Petitioner

Versus

State by:

The Inspector of Police, Kandhikuppam Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

(Cr.No.189 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with Crime No.189 of 2025 on the file of respondent Police.

For Petitioner : M/s.K.Prasanth For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl. Side) *****

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 332(c) and 305(a) of BNS Act in Crime No.189 of 2025, on the file of the Page No.1 of 4

respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that totally there are 5 accused persons in which the petitioner is arrayed as A4. When the petitioner stayed with the defacto complainant after attending a marriage reception in same room, she has stolen 21 sovereigns of gold belonging to the defacto complainant and had given to A1 and A5 who in turn had given it to A2 and A3. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and she has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and sought for anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that 21 sovereigns of gold has been recovered and the petitioner had actively participated in the theft of jewellery. He further submits that A5 is still absconding, however, insofar as A1 to A3 are concerned they were been arrested and remanded to judicial custody and vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to Page No.2 of 4

the petitioner.

5.Considering the above fact and circumstances of the case and since custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application stands dismissed. 14.07.2025 rap To 1.The Inspector of Police, Kandhikuppam Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Page No.3 of 4

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN , J.

rap 14.07.2025 Page No.4 of 4