Sheeraz Ahmed v. State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 30.12.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL Sheeraz Ahmed ... Petitioner Vs State Rep. by The Inspector of Police Pernampet Police Station, Vellore District.
(Crime No.294/2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.294 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr. E.Kannadasan For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) *****
ORDER
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(a) BNS altered 1/5
into 331(4), 305(a), 317(2), 317(5) of BNS, 2023, in connection with Cr.No.294 of 2025, seek anticipatory bail.
The case of the prosecution is that on 30.09.2025, when the defacto complainant returned back to her house, she found the main door was opened and bureau was broke opened and theft of gold ornaments weighing 21⁄4 sovereigns. Hence, a case was registered in Cr.No.294/2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 331(4), 305(a) BNS altered into 331(4), 305(a), 317(2), 317(5) of BNS, 2023.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the respondent police and only based on the confession statement of the co-accused, he has been implicated in the present case. Further co-accused were arrested and released on bail. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail.
The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner trespassed into the house of the defacto complainnat and committed theft of gold ornaments and recovery was made from the co-accused. The petitioner was implicated based on the 2/5
statement of the co-accused and no previous case is pending against the petitioner. Hence he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. Considering the nature of the offence and the facts that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner and co-accused was also released on bail, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions.
Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:
[a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent-police on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks. [b] the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, 3/5
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; [c] the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].
[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.2023.
30.12.2025 cgi To
1. The Inspector of Police Pernampet Police Station, Vellore District.
2. Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
4/5
P.DHANABAL, J., cgi/ksa-2 06.
30.12.2025 5/5