Krishnan v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 23.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.25107 of 2025 Krishnan ... Petitioner Vs.

State Rep by The Inspector of Police Sooramangalam Police Station Salem.

(Crime No.314 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 the arrest in Crime No.314 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police.

For Petitioner : M/s.Vedavallikumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/6

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC, in Crime No.314 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner joined hands with the other accused misappropriated a huge quantity of 18 kgs of Silver from the employees of the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not working under the defacto complainant. He received the silver from some other persons, who have not misappropriated the same and further submitted that he is a professional dealer of the silver articles and who ever comes to sell the silver, he used to purchase, there is no criminality involved against him. He further submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to furnish sufficient solvent sureties for his release. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 2/6

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent police reported that the two persons A1 & A2 were working under the defacto complainant and they misappropriated small amounts of silver for long period and sold the same through the petitioner herein. The confession of A1 & A2 reveals that A1 & A2 after sealing the silver, handed over the same to one Karuppaiah, who has sold the same to petitioner herein. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the fact that the petitioner is alleged to be received the silver articles from one Karuppaiah not from A1 & A2 and he is not directly involved in stealing or misappropriation, already A1 and A2 arrested in this case. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Principal District and Sessions Court, Salem on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) 3/6

with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: (a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate, within a period of fifteen 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 the identity proofs to ensure their identity;

[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of three weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

[d] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

4/6

[e] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 23.09.2025 dna To 1.The Principal District and Sessions Court, Salem. 2.The Inspector of Police Sooramangalam Police Station Salem.

(Crime No.314 of 2025) 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

dna Crl.O.P.No.25107 of 2025 23.09.2025 6/6