Karthik v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.01.2026 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.35796 of 2025 Karthik ... Petitioner -vsState Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Perur Police Station, Coimbatore District.
(Crime No.341 of 2025) ... Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.341 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner :
Mr.A.Saranraj For Respondent :
Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side) *********
ORDER
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 02.11.2025 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 310(2) of BNS Act, 2023 in Crime No.341 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
1/4
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he joined hands with 12 other accused and induced the defacto complainant to bring Rs.25 lakhs in cash on the pretext of purchasing gold jewellery and selling the same for profit. It is alleged that, after the defacto complainant brought the money, he was taken to a lonely place where all the accused joined together and attacked him and robbed a sum of Rs.25 lakhs. Hence, a complaint was lodged and the petitioner was arrested.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a college student and has been falsely implicated in this case, since he was having some relationship with some of the accused. He further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 02.11.2025. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there are totally 13 accused in this case and the petitioner is ranked as A11. He further submitted that a total amount involved is Rs.25 lakhs, out of which only Rs.2.81 lakhs has been recovered. The investigation revealed that the petitioner actively participated in the occurrence and collected a sum of Rs.50,000/- as his share. He further submitted that the petitioner has one previous case, under MCOP. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record including 2/4
the First Information Report.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the fact that no accused has been granted bail so far, that out of Rs.25 lakhs only 2.81 lakhs alone was recovered, and that the petitioner received a sum of Rs.50,000/- as his share, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. with certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 07.01.2026 drl To 1.The Inspector of Police, Perur Police Station, Coimbatore District.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
3/4
K. RAJASEKAR, J.
drl Crl.O.P.No.35796 of 2025 07.01.2026 4/4