S.Ayyappan v. State Rep.By Its, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
1. S.Ayyappan S/o.Subramaniyan Murugan, 3/30, Main Road, Ma.Kunnathur, Ulunthurpettai, Villupuram District.
2. Pushbaraj S/o. Duraisamy, Main Road, Athur, Ulunthurpettai, Villupuram District.
3. Ealaiyaperumal S/o.Ramasamy, Main Road, Athur, Ulunthurpettai, Villupuram District.
4. Abesh S/o.Lugas, 53, Arunachalapuram, Oothikadu Post, Thiruvallur District.
..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep.by its, The Inspector of Police, T3, Pallavaram Police Station, Chengalpattu District.
Cr.No.277 of 2026.
..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.277 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, T3,Pallavaram Police Station, Chengalpattu District.
For Petitioner(s):
MR. P.Alexander For Respondent(s):
MR.N.PALANIVEL, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE)
ORDER
The petitioners apprehends arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 303(2) of BNS, in Crime No.277 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they had committed theft of electrical cables belonging to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, worth about Rs.17,35,000/-. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners were not named as accused and that they have been implicated only based on the confession of the arrested accused. He further submitted they are the receivers of the stolen property. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions,
submitted that the main accused has already been arrested and remanded to judicial custody. He further submitted that the petitioners were implicated based on the confession statement of the arrested accused and that the stolen property has also been recovered. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
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, it is seen that the petitioners were not named accused and that their implication is based on the confession statement of the arrested accused. In such circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that, at this length of time custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram, Chengalpattu District, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:
(a) If the petitioners fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;
(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;
(c) The petitioners shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m. and 5.30 p.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;
(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];
(e) If the petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.
24-06-2026 DRL To 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram, Chengalpattu District.
2.The Inspector of Police, T3, Pallavaram Police Station, Chengalpattu District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
DRL 24-06-2026