Dilip v. State Of Tamil Nadu, Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06-11-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP NO.29093 of 2025 Dilip ... Petitioner/ Accused Vs The State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, B-1 North Beach Station, Chennai.

(Crime No.306 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused in Crime No.306 of 2025 registered on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioner(s) :

Mr. Rajesh Yadav S.E.

For Respondent(s) :

Mr. S. Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ******* 1/4

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 309(5) of BNS in Crime No.306 of 2025, registered on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner along with other accused robbed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from the defacto complainant at knife point. Hence, this case.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; that the co-accused/ A6 were already granted anticipatory bail by this Court with one of the conditions to deposit a sum of Rs.70,000/- to the credit of Crime No.306 of 2025, vide order dated 24.10.2025 in Crl.O.P.No.28867 of 2025 and the other arrested co-accused were already enlarged on bail; and that the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court and sought for anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 2/4

4.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent while opposing the anticipatory bail to the petitioner reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner has four previous cases of similar nature; and that the investigation of the case is pending.

5.

Considering the submissions made on both sides, nature of offence, though the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready to deposit the same amount as ordered by this Court to the co-accused while granting anticipatory bail, however taking note of the previous antecedents of the petitioner, huge amount involved in this case, the investigation of this case is pending and if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is possibility of hampering of investigation process, hence this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6.

Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 05.11.2025 stn 3/4

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

stn To

1. The Inspector of Police, B-1 North Beach Station, Chennai.

(Crime No.306 of 2025)

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

CRL OP NO.29093 of 2025 06.11.2025 4/4