Syed Dadu v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06.11.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

1. Syed Dadu

2. Irshad Pasha ... Petitioners -vsState Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Thiruchengode Police Station, Namakkal District.

(Crime No.260 of 2025) ... Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.260 of 2025 pending investigation on the respondent police.

For Petitioners :

Mr.P.Dasarathan For Respondent :

Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ********** 1/4

ORDER

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 29.09.2025, for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(a) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.260 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The allegation against these petitioners is that, these petitioners were involved in the theft of iron rings valued about Rs.76,500/-. Hence this case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are an innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioners are in judicial custody from 29.09.2025 and ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioners.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution's case and submitted that the petitioners are involved in stealing the properties worth about Rs.76500/- and only Rs.70000/- have been recovered and co-accused / A3 is still absconding and investigation is pending. He further submitted that the petitioners having one previous case 2/4

similar in nature. Hence, he strongly opposed for grant of bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record including the First Information Report.

6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel on either side, that the petitioners are alleged to have stolen the property, although the majority of it was later recovered, co-accused / A3 is still absconding, petitioners having one previous case similar in nature, hence this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 06.11.2025 rna To 1.The Inspector of Police, Thiruchengode Police Station, Namakkal District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

3/4

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

rna 06.11.2025 4/4