Venkatesan Boopathi v. State Rep .By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP NO.34051 of 2025 Venkatesan Boopathi ... Petitioner/ Accused Vs The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, Thirunindravur Police station, Avadi, Tiruvallur District. (Crime No.525 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest by the respondent in Crime No.525 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr. A.Tamilselvan For Intervenor : Mr.T.Muruganantham For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ****** 1/5

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.11.2025, seeking bail in Crime No.525 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 351(2) of BNS Act [ Sections 506 (ii) of IPC r/w 4 of TNPPDL Act].

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the resident where the defacto complainant was residing and since the defacto complainant as an advocate provided professional services to one of his clientS regarding property and since the defacto complainant has also supported his client, the petitioner who is having bad antecedent, has come forward and threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences and it was not taken seriously by the defacto complainant, hence he set fired the Mahindra car value about Rs.15 lakhs. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an IT professional and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he was not involved in the above said case as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, hence sought for bail to 2/5

the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the anticipatory bail, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there are four previous cases pending against the petitioner and the investigation in this case is pending. He further submitted that the damage caused to the property is also huge, to a tune of Rs.15 lakhs. Hence, he opposed for the grant of bail to the petitioner. 5.Considering the nature of the allegations and also the fact that the petitioner is involved in damaging the property worth about Rs.15 lakhs, and he is also having bad antecedents and the motive behind the occurrence is also to threaten the defacto complainant who is an advocate by profession to prevent him from continuing his professional services, this Court is not inclined to allow this Criminal Original Petition. 6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 12.12.2025 gbi 3/5

To 1.The Inspector of Police, Thirunindravur Police station, Avadi, Tiruvallur District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 4/5

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

gbi Crl.O.P. No.34051 of 2025 12.12.2025 5/5