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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Muthaiyan .. Petitioner Vs.

State rep by The Inspector of police Kannankurichi Police Station, Salem District Crime No. 626 of 2024 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No. 626 of 2024 on the file of respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr. W.Camyles Gandhi For Respondent :

Mr.R.Vinoth Raja Government Advocate (Crl.side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.08.2024, for the offence punishable under Sections 309(4), 311 and 351 (3) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No. 626 of 2024, registered on the file of the respondent, seek bail.

1/4

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had waylaid the de facto complainant and robbed a sum of Rs.2,000/- from him at knife point. Hence, the case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submitted that the petitioner is in no way connected with the alleged offence, however, he is suffering incarceration from 18.08.2024. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing for grant of bail to the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had waylaid the de facto complainant and robbed a sum of Rs.2,000/- from him at knife point. He submitted that there are twenty five previous cases pending against the petitioner. He further submits that in this case, investigation has been completed and PRC has been committed in SC.No.50 of 2025. He also submits that only nine witnesses remain to be examined. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

2/4

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record .

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, submissions made by the learned counsels on either side, considering the fact that only nine witnesses were remain to be examined, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. However, the Trial Court is directed to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 24.07.2025 nr To

1. The Inspector of police Kannankurichi Police Station, Salem District

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

3/4

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

nr 24.07.2025 4/4