Saravanan @ Nappo v. The State Rep By Its The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08-09-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

1. Saravanan @ Nappo S/o. Ravi, No.7/11, East Pudavai Nagar, 2nd Street, Chrompet, Chennai-600044.

2. Dinesh @ Dyaneshwaran S/o. Selvaraj, No.17, Bharathidasan Street, 3rd Cross Street, Pallikaranai, Chennai-100.

3. Sachin @ Buvaneshwaran S/o. Kesavan, No.14, East Puduvai Nagar, 2nd Street, Chrompet, Chennai-600044.

Petitioner(s) Vs The State rep by its The Inspector of Police T-12, Selaiyur Police Station, Chennai.

Respondent(s) 1/5

PRAYER To enlarge the petitioners on bail in the above crime No.274 of 2025 pending on the file of the respondent police .

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.R.Sridhar For Respondent(s):

Mr.A.Gopinath, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.06.2025 for the alleged offence under Section 194 of BNS and later on it was altered as 103(1), 140(1), 127(2), 118(1) of BNS in Crime No.274 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.06.2025, on suspiciously, the man was sleeping on the road near Velacherry to Tambaram main road, near the compound wall of forest department and on seeing the same, doctor was arrived and on diagnosing him, he was declared as dead. Accordingly, based on the complaint received from VAO and on verification of CCTV footage, F.I.R. was registered against the petitioners.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they are arrayed as A1, A2 and A6 and they have been falsely implicated in this case. But the fact 2/5

reveals that the deceased is having attempted to develop illicit intimacy with the defacto complainant's sister, though he was married and when it was questioned by them, there was only a wordy quarrel between them and they have not at all committed any offence as alleged by the respondent police. He would submit that there is no specific overtact against these petitioners and they are innocent persons. He would submit that there is no role of the petitioners in the alleged offence and no previous case pending against them. He would further submit that the investigation is almost completed and that the petitioners have been suffering incarceration from 02.07.2025 for more than 62 days. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent raised strong objections stating that A1 along with other accused with previous motive and with an intention to attack the deceased, they dragged the deceased to many places and the same was notified through CCTV footage. He would submit that totally, there are 6 accused involved in this case and the petitioners are arrayed as A1, A2 and A6. He would also submit that if they are released on bail, they may abscond and they would tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation and the investigation is not yet completed. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioners. 3/5

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both counsel and on seeing the facts, A1 along with other accused with previous motive and also with an intention to attack the deceased dragged him to many places, which was notified through CCTV footage and also the fact that now investigation is not yet completed and at this stage, if they are released on bail, they may abscond and there is possibility of tampering the witnesses and hampering the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 08-09-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes rpp To

1. Judicial Magistrate-II, Tambaram.

2. The Inspector of Police, T-12 Selaiyur Police Station, Chennai.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 4/5

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

rpp CRL OP No. 24479 of 08-09-2025 5/5