Muthukumar v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By The Inspector Of Police, Sivagiri

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 12.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 10592 of 2026 Muthukumar

...Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Sivagiri Police Station, Tenkasi District.

(Crime No.157 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Balakrishnan Advocate For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervenor : Mr.K.Muthurakkan PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 157 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.05.2026, for the offences punishable under Section 305(a) of BNS in Crime No.157 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 1/6

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant running a tailoring unit. The accused persons planned and committed theft of 21 tailoring machines, 21 scissors and 21 chairs. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The first accused alone committed the offence. The petitioner has running business of selling old sewing machines. Without the knowledge that the machines are stolen by the first accused, the petitioner purchased the same from him by giving valuable sale consideration. Co-accused has been released on anticipatory bail. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the offence are grave in nature. 12 machines have been recovered from this petitioner. The petitioner has no previous case. Investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

5.The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the employee 2/6

of the defacto complainant along with this petitioner stolen the machines and other things worth about more than Rs.3 lakhs. Only part of the properties alone has been recovered. Hence, he strongly opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

6. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, considering the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner, already this petitioner was enquired by the police and part of the properties were recovered, this petitioner has no previous case and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on 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, Sivagiri, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police 3/6

daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he/she is suspected;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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 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 BNS.

(P D B J) 12.06.2026 TM 4/6

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri.

2.The Inspector of Police, Sivagiri Police Station, Tenkasi District. (Crime No.157 of 2026) 3.The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 10592 of 2026 Date : 12.06.2026 6/6