← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/8321/2026granted

Sathishkumar v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Thanthonimalai

2026-04-27Honourable Mr. Justice P.Dhanabal6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 27/04/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

1. Sathishkumar

2. Loganathan ... Petitioners/Accused No.1&2 Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Thanthonimalai Police Station, Karur District.

Crime No.109/2026. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.109/2026 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioners : Lenin Kumar, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the 1/6

respondent for the offence punishable under Section 306 of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.109 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is working as team leader in Instacart Services Pvt. Ltd., and the petitioners ware working as delivery executive in the said Company. On 06.12.2025, when the quality team of the said company conducted audit in the Karur branch and found that as many as 18 electronic items were found missing. On enquiry, it came to know that the petitioners without preparing any run sheet took away the consignments. On 23.01.2026, when the complainant enquired with the first petitioner he admitted his guilt and as such he was terminated from service and the worth of the electronic goods is Rs.2,45,783/-.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are no way connected in the above said incident. He would further 2/6

submit that the petitioners herein are the only delivery boys and no previous case is pending against the petitioners. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioners are working as delivery executive in the Instacart Services Pvt. Ltd., and during audit by the defacto complainant, it came to know that 18 electronic items worth about Rs.2,45,783/- were found missing and the offence is grave in nature and the investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. He would further submit that no previous case is pending against the petitioners.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners, and the petitioners are the only working as delivery boys and even as per the prosecution, the 3/6

occurrence was took place on 06.12.2025 and the FIR has been registered on 22.03.2026 after a long gap and FIR has been registered on 22.03.2026, by this time, the material part of the investigation might have been completed and no previous case is pending against the other petitioners, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to 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 Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m until further order; [c] the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature.

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or 4/6

witness either during investigation or trial. [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

(P D B J) 27.04.2026 dss 5/6

P. DHANABAL,J DSS To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thanthonimalai Police Station, Karur District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.8321 of 2026 Date : 27/04/2026 6/6