Thamotharan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Dindigul Taluk

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 05/11/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY Thamotharan, S/o.Murugesan ... Petitioner/A3 Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.556 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.M.Dhinakar, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.556 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.

1/4

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A3, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 311 of BNS, 2023 r/w. Section 25(1A) of Arms Act, 1959 r/w. Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992, in Crime No.556 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is a conductor in a mini bus. On 12.10.2025, the petitioner and other accused persons were entered into the mini bus with deadly weapons and attacked the defacto complainant and extorted a sum of Rs.10,000/- and a mobile phone. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and has not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution, and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks 2/4

anticipatory bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the petitioner is having 12 previous cases. In the present case, the specific overtact against the petitioner is he assaulted the defacto complainant and extorted money. However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the petitioner is having 12 previous cases and all the cases are regarding hitting somebody and snatching money and breaking the property of somebody else. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

05.11.2025 PJL To 1.The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District.

3/4

S.SRIMATHY,J PJL 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

ORDER

IN 05.11.2025 4/4