Rajkumar v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

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

30.11.2024 for the alleged offences under Section 309(4) and 311 of B.N.S in Cr. No.531 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page2 of 4

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused demanded money from the defacto complainant and when the same was refused by her, the accused persons threatened her at knife point and snatched her gold chain, a cell phone and robbed an amount of Rs.2,000/- and also threatened her with dire consequences and hence the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he is under incarceration since 30.11.2024. He would further submit that there are four accused and this petitioner has been ranked as A1, that according to the prosecution, this petitioner along with other accused has robbed Rs.2,000/-, gold chain and cell phone from the defacto complainant and now all the properties have been recovered. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that A2 has already been granted bail vide order passed by this Court dated 30.12.2025 in Crl. O.P. No.35880 of 2025 and hence prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶4At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent police would strongly oppose the bail application that A2 has only two previous cases, whereas in the case of the petitioner, he has 38 previous cases to his credit and apart from that, all of them are murder cases. Page3 of 4

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

¶6From the submissions made on either side, though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in some of the previous cases, the petitioner has been released on bail and in one case, he has been acquitted, taking into consideration the conduct and character of the petitioner, this Court is of the firm view that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it may have adverse impact on the society and considering the interest of the Society, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 30-03-2026 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. To

¶1The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶2The Inspector of Police, Arambakkam Police Station, Tiruvallur District. CRLoOPoNo.o7910oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. MJS CRLoOPoNo.o7910oofo2026 30-03-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Rajkumar S/o.Saravanan, No. 62/54, Selvalakshmi Nagar, Perumal Agaram, Thiruverkadu, Chennai 600 077. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State represented by: The Inspector of Police Arambakkam Police Station, Tiruvallur District. (SC No. 411/2025) (Cr.No. 531/2024) ..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 S.C.No. 411/2025 in Crime No. 531/2024 on the file of the District Mahila Court, at Thiruvallur. For Petitioner(s): M/S. Ganesha Moorthy B. For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Criminal side)