R.Sudharaman v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 11.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL R.Sudharaman

...Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Orathanadu Police Station, Thanjavur District (Crime No. 91 of 2026 )

...Respondent

For Petitioners : Mr.C.Genil For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of Tamil Nadu (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.91 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

1/4

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A2, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 304 of BNS in Crime No. 91 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.02.2026 when the defacto complainant got off from a bus with an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to hand over the same to one Senthil and Chandrasekar , totally six accused person including the petitioner herein who came in a car pulled down the defacto complainant and robbed the said amount. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that on 21.02.2026 when the defacto complainant got off from a bus with an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to hand over the same to one Senthil and Chandrasekar , totally six accused person including the petitioner herein 2/4

who came in a car pulled down the defacto complainant and robbed the said amount. Investigation is pending. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

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

6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and considering the nature of offence and the fact tht investigation is not yet completed and the fact that only part of the properties has been recovered and remaining amount have to be recovered, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7. Hence the petition stands dismissed.

(P D B J) 11.06.2026 aav To 1.The Inspector of Police, Orathanadu Police Station, Thanjavur District 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

3/4

P. DHANABAL, J aav

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.10523 of 2026 Date : 11.06.2026 4/4