Chetan Parihar v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

02.02.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.36 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page2 of 4

¶2It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner, along with the other accused, in the guise of running a pawn broker shop, have collected 206 sovereigns of gold jewels from the general public, closed the shop and ran away to Rajasthan and thus committed the offence. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that a part of gold articles have been recovered from the accused. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and seeks for bail.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and would submit that in so far as 60 sovereigns of gold jewels were recovered and investigation is still pending and the remaining gold jewels are yet to be recovered. Hence, he would vehemently oppose for the grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶5I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record. Page3 of 4

¶6From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate, this is the case where the accused, on the premise of taking pledge of the gold jewels, has cheated the jewels from customers, weighing of 206 sovereigns and closed the shop and ran away to Rajasthan. Though FIR was registered on

23.01.2026, since the accused ran away to Rajasthan, the police arrested him on

29.01.2026 and so far only 60 sovereigns of jewels were recovered from the petitioner.

7.The learned Government Advocate would further submit that since the investigation is pending and that the remaining jewellery is yet to be recovered and that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may again abscond and run away to Rajasthan. If that being the case, further investigation would be delayed and the public interest would be affected.

8.In such view of the position, this Court is of the view that taking into consideration the nature of allegation and the interest of public at large, whose jewels have been cheated by this petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

9.In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 10-03-2026 ATA Page4 of 4

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. ATA To

¶1The Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Tambaram.

¶2The Inspector of Police, Selaiyur Police Station, Chennai.

¶3The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶4The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 10-03-2026

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Chetan Parihar S/o.Manohar Singh, No.93, Ramakrishna Puram 3rd Main Road, Chitlapakkam, Kasturi Bai Nagar, Tambaram, Chennai. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Selaiyur Police Station, Chennai. Cr.No.36/2026 ..Respondent(s) To enlarge the petitioner/1st accused on bail in Crime No.36 of 2026 pending before the respondent police. For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Babu For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)