Dalsin David @ Densingh David v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 03/06/2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAI Dalsin David @ Densingh David ... Petitioner/ Sole Accused Vs.
The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Puthukadai Police Station, Kanyakumari District.
... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr. P.Sonu Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.S.Prakash Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.27 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/ Sole Accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 303(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.27 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 1/3
2. The case of the prosecution as per the Defacto complainant is that he is working as Sub Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Kuzhithurai and Thuckaly Division. Without his knowledge, from 10.10.2024, the workers of TANFINET are laying optic fibre from BSNL office Painkulam to Thegapattinum National Highways and only on 15.10.2024, the office of the defacto complainant was informed about the work and they rushed to the spot and came to know that the petitioner and his workers had stolen away the copper wires laid thereon. On 18.10.2024, the defacto complainant preferred the first complaint before the respondent and the office of the defacto complainant was asked to dig the area. Since the workers of the TANFINET did not come forward, on 07.01.2025, they had dug the area in the presence of the petitioner and ascertained the losses. Hence the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the petitioner/Accused, who working as Field Manager in the TANFINET Company has stolen away the BSNL copper wires, worth about Rs.16,55,000/- and the property has not yet been recovered. Hence, he objected to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also 2/3
taking into consideration of the fact the value of the stolen property is Rs.16,55,000/- and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary and the property has not yet been recovered, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 03/06/2025 / TRUE COPY / /06/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
MAC TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHUKADAI POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.
2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.5749 of 2025 Date :03/06/2025 SA/SAR. /16.06.2025/3P/3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023. 3/3