T.Selvaraj v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 20/08/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAI and CRL MP(MD). No.10597 of 2025 T.Selvaraj, S/o.Thangaraj ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Taluk Police Station, Madurai District.
(Crime No.68 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.Prakash, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For Intervenor : Mr.S.Mahendrapathy, Advocate 1/5
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.68 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 108 of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.68 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant is the wife of the deceased. The deceased was employed as a Clerk in the PACCB Society, and the petitioner worked as an Appraiser in the same Society. The petitioner allegedly received duplicate jewels from 14 persons, pledged them in their names, and renewed the same. Unaware of these facts, the deceased signed the registration notes and maintained the records. Upon discovering the true facts, when the deceased questioned the petitioner, the petitioner stated that the deceased was responsible for the pledged duplicate jewels. Due to this incident, the deceased committed suicide. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is the second 2/5
anticipatory bail application filed before this Court. The petitioner is an innocent person, and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He, however, submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail.
4. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the investigation is at preliminary stage. If the accused is granted anticipatory bail, he may threaten the witness and tamper the evidence. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the accused is very much necessary in this case. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that suicidal note of the deceased was recovered, which clearly indicates that the petitioner was the one who pledged the duplicate jewels. He further submitted that there is no previous case against the petitioner. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner, and taking note of the fact that 3/5
even after the dismissal of the earlier anticipatory bail, there is no change in circumstances, and that the investigation is still at preliminary stage, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed. sd/- 26/08/2025 / TRUE COPY / /06/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
mkn TO 1 The Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Taluk Police Station, Madurai District.
2 The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 CC to M/s.J.SENTHIL KUMARAIAH, Advocate ( SR-7960[I] dated 23/07/2025 ) 4/5
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.11526 of 2025 Date :26/08/2025 NM/15.09.2025/ 5P/4C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 5/5