Nagaraj v. State By, Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.34298 of 2025 Nagaraj .. Petitioner Vs.

State by Inspector of Police, Hudco Police Station, Krishnagiri District, Crime No.371 of 2025 .... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioner on Anticipatory Bail, in the event of his arrest pending investigation in Crime No.371 of 2025 on the file of the residence police.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thamaraiselvan For Respondent : Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 127(2), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1), 140(2) and 309(6) of BNS in Cr.No.371 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

1/4

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, in connivance with the other accused, lured the defacto complainant by calling him through one of the co-accused, a lady, under the guise of showing properties. Thereafter, he was taken to a secluded building, wrongfully confined, and his valuables to the tune of Rs.3,22,000/- were snatched. The accused also allegedly demanded a ransom of Rs.20,00,000/-. In the meantime, the defacto complainant managed to share his live location, pursuant to which the police traced the place, rescued him, and arrested some of the accused, which led to the registration of the FIR. Hence, the present case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as A2 in this case, that he has no previous criminal antecedents, and that he has been falsely implicated due to the influence of the defacto complainant. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner, along with other accused, conspired to commit the offence and engaged A6 to lure the defacto complainant to a secluded place. He further submitted that the accused forcibly removed the defacto complainant's clothes, took photographs, assaulted him with deadly weapons, threatened 2/4

him with dire consequences, and robbed him of gold jewels and other valuables. He also submitted that A1, A3, A4, and A7 have been arrested, that some other accused are absconding, and that the robbed properties are yet to be recovered.

5. Considering the fact that the properties are yet to be recovered, that the arrested accused are still in custody, and that the petitioner has actively participated in the commission of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 15.12.2025 Vv To

1. The Inspector of Police Hudco Police Station, Krishnagiri District,

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

3/4

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

Vv Crl.O.P.No.34298 of 2025 15.12.2025 4/4