Muthuraj v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 30.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL Muthuraj ... Petitioner Vs State Rep. by The Inspector of Police Bargur Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

(Crime No.61/2025) ... 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.61 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 309(6), 311 and 332(b) BNS, 1/5

in connection with Cr.No.61 of 2025, seek anticipatory bail. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.02.2025 at about 5.30 a.m. when the defacto complainant and his wife woke up on the bed, three unknown persons trespassed into the house and committed theft at knife point worth about 18 sovereigns of gold. Hence, a case was registered in Cr.No.61/2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 309(6), 311 and 332(b) of BNS.

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. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has been arrayed as A4, based on the confession statement of the co-accused. There is no previous case pending against the petitioner. Hence he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

2/5

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. Considering the nature of the offence and the fact that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner and the petitioner was implicated in this case only based on the confession statement of co-accused, 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 No.I, Krishnagiri, 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, 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; 3/5

[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, Bargur Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

2. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri.

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

4/5

P.DHANABAL, J., cgi/ksa-2 06.

30.12.2025 5/5