Prakash v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Aravakurichi

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 10.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN CRL OP(MD)No.4992 of 2026 Prakash ... Petitioner / Accused Rank Not Known

Versus

The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Aravakurichi Police Station, Karur District.

(Crime No.349 of 2025) ... Respondent / Complainant PRAYER :-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.349 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police or on his appearance.

For Petitioner :

Mr.W.Cleetus, Advocate For Respondent :

Mr.P.Kottaichamy, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 1/5

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/accused, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police in Crime No.349 of 2025 for the offence punishable under Section 304(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with four other accused persons, allegedly trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant by breaking open the doors, assaulted the defacto complainant, committed theft of the jewels kept in the bureau, and snatched the chain of the defacto complainant. Hence, a case has been registered against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence 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, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 2/5

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the petitioner has 14 previous cases against him. He further submitted that several cases are registered against the petitioner in various police stations and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. He also submitted that the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence in the present case. Hence, he strongly objected to the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. This Court heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made on either side, and in view of the specific allegations against the petitioner, and his involvement in 14 previous cases and his alleged presence at the place of occurrence in the present case, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

10.03.2026 pal 3/5

To 1.The Inspector of Police, Aravakurichi Police Station, Karur District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN ,J.

pal

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.4992 of 2026 Date : 10.03.2026 5/5