Santhi v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Sipcot
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 20/05/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR Santhi ... Petitioner/Accused Vs The State of Tamilnadu represented by The Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.330 of 2026) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.S.Deepaksiva For Respondent : Mr.A.Albert James, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervenor : Mr.Mohammed Yunnis PETITION FOR ANTICIBATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.330/2026 on the file of the respondent Police.
1/6
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Section 305(a) of BNS, in Crime No.330 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is residing in a house belongs to the petitioner and that on 20.04.2026, the defacto complainant, on suspecting that the petitioner had stolen a gold chain from her grand daughter, lodged a complaint. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the property was not recovered and the investigation is pending and that the petitioner is not 2/6
having any previous cases. Therefore, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant would submit that the gold chain worth about Rs.40,000/- was not recovered.
6. Considering the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner and also the fact that the petitioner is not having any previous cases, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, 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 Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thoothukudi, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on further conditions that:
3/6
[a]the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police once in a month i.e., on the first day of every English calendar month at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;
[c]the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [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 is 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 absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.
(R V J) 20.05.2026 CSM 4/6
TO 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thoothukudi.
2.The Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J CSM
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.9432 of 2026 Date : 20/05/2026 6/6