Praveen Kumar M v. The State Rep By, the Inspector of Police

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

05.06.2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 311 of B.N.S. @ Sections 309(6), 310(2), 312 and 331(6) of B.N.S. in Cr. No.84 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page2 of 4

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on 14.05.2025 at about 8.45 p.m., the accused persons had trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and robbed gold ornaments and cash Rs.15,000/- using lethal weapons and hence the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that due to the family dispute, false complaint has been lodged against him, the petitioner is under incarceration since 05.06.2025 and he is ready and willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court and hence prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and strongly opposed to enlarge the petitioner on bail on the ground that the petitioner has also involved in 10 other previous cases.

¶5I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

¶6The learned Government Advocate strongly opposed the bail application stating that the petitioner has 10 previous cases and apart from that, Page3 of 4 the occurrence took place on 14.05.2025 and the petitioner was arrested only on

05.06.2025. According to the prosecution, this petitioner along with other accused entered into the defacto complainant's premises and assaulted them brutally and looted gold jewels and cash. He would further submit that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, the same would jeopardise the prosecution case, As contended by the learned Government Advocate, taking into consideration the gravity of allegations and the nature of injury meted out by the defacto complainant and considering the past conduct of the petitioner, this Court is of the firm view that the reasonable apprehension raised by the learned Government Advocate in respect of tampering of evidences and threatening of witnesses, cannot be ruled out and hence this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 25-03-2026 MJS Note:

¶1Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

¶2All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code. Page4 of 4

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. MJS To

¶1The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶2The Inspector of Police,Uddanapalli Police Station, Krishnagiri District. 25-03-2026

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Praveen Kumar M S/o. Muthuramalingam, No.1/83 A, Perumal Kovil Stret, Thoppadiyur, Thirupuliyankudi, Thoothukkudi - 628 621. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State represented by: The Inspector of Police Uddanapalli Police Station, Krishnagiri District. (Crime No. 84 / 2025) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: The Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.84 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s): M/s. S. Petchiappan For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Criminal side)