Murugan v. The State Of Tamilnadu Represented By Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.08.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN Murugan ... Petitioner Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu represented by, The Inspector of Police, E-3, Teynampet Police Station.

Chennai.

(Crime No.271 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.271 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner :

Mr.C.K.M.Appaji For Respondent :

Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner herein is a sole accused in Crime No. 271 of 2025, which was registered on 24.06.2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 118(1), 324(4), 309(4), 311 & 351(3) of BNS on the file of the respondent.

1/4

2. As per the prosecution, the petitioner herein attacked the de facto complainant, a Sanitary worker, robbed a sum of Rs.3,000/- and also caused simple injury. When the public tried to apprehend him, he has thrown a stone and caused damage to the LED television kept in a showroom.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and that the respondent has foisted a false case against him.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) opposed the bail petition, stating that twelve previous cases are pending against the petitioner and that, at knife point, he robbed Rs.3,000/- from the sanitary worker, who is the de facto complainant in this case. The investigation in this case is still pending.

5. On perusal of the seizure mahazar, this Court finds that the respondent Police have recovered the knife used by the accused to threaten the de facto complainant and a sum of Rs.1000/-, which forms part of the robbed amount from the de facto complainant.

2/4

6. Considering the antecedents of the petitioner and the fact that he has been repeatedly involved in the similar offences, this Court is of the view that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may distort the evidence. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed for the present.

11.08.2025 ham To

1. The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

2. The Inspector of Police, E-3, Teynampet Police Station, Chennai.

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3/4

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN , J.

ham 11.08.2025 4/4