Manikandan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Puthanatham

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date :18.11.2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY 1.Manikandan 2.Subash Chadraboss 3.Karan ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.7,6&8 Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by, the Inspector of Police, Puthanatham Police Station, Trichy District.

(Crime No.244 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr. M.Vivek For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.244 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.

1/4

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 310(2), 333, 127(7), 311, 351(3) and 332(b) of BNS, in Crime No.244 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant during night time and attacked the defacto complainant and her husband and tied the children using green fencing material and sealed their mouth using brown cello tape and threatened them with weapons and robbed their ear rings and other gold jewels totally 9 1⁄2 sovereigns of gold and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- cash and also made life threat. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any conditions which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 2/4

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the petitioners are having previous cases of similar in nature. He further submitted that the anticipatory bail applications filed by the coaccused were already dismissed and the investigation is almost completed. However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of offence, and also the petitioners are having previous cases similar in nature and the anticipatory bail applications filed by the co-accused are already dismissed, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

18.11.2025 PJL To 1.The Inspector of Police, Puthanatham Police Station, Trichy District.

3/4

S.SRIMATHY,J PJL

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

ORDER

IN 18.11.2025 4/4