S Dharmalingam v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 16.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.25379 of 2025 S.Dharmalingam ... Petitioner Vs.

State Rep by The Inspector of Police, B8, Pullarambakkam Police Station Tiruvallur District.

... Respondent (Cr.No.120 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.120 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Gopisubanidhi For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 303(2) of BNS Act, 2023 in Crime No. 120 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

1/6

2. The case of the prosecution is that when the defacto complainant along with his employees were doing their contract work at Kalyanakuppam , 6 way lane of CH-52 site, the petitioner joined hands with other accused persons entered into the construction area and taken away the stock materials kept in the site worth about Rs.1,75,000/-. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that it is not possible to take the goods. He also submits that 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.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submits that there are totally three accused in this case and the petitioner is arrayed as A2. He submits that A1 in this case was arrested and from him, 50 kg of iron materials were recovered. He also submits that A2 was not arrested and property was not recovered from him. Hence, he opposed to grant 2/6

anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, submissions made by learned counsels on either side, considering the fact that the property is yet to be recovered from the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 16.09.2025 nr To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvallur.

2. The Inspector of Police, B8, Pullarambakkam Police Station Tiruvallur District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3/6

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

nr Crl.O.P.No.25379 of 2025 16.09.2025 4/6