Vanitha v. The State Rep By, Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Section 306 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, in Crime No.1029 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The allegation against the petitioners is that they are running a Manpower Agency, and under the pretext of providing domestic workers to various households, they allegedly instigated their employees to commit theft of jewels from such houses. It is alleged that, pursuant to this, the accused/A1, who had been engaged through the petitioners' agency to the work at the house of the defacto complainant, committed theft of 9½ sovereigns of silver articles-. It is further alleged that after the theft, the accused/A1 informed the petitioners and they, in turn, shared the stolen jewels among themselves. Hence, the present complaint has been registered.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and are bona-fide operators of an employee placement agency. They were not aware of the theft committed by the accused/A1. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that this is the third anticipatory bail application of the petitioners and there are totally seven accused and these petitioners are ranked as A2 and A3.The petitioners, who are running a Manpower Agency, had in fact instigated their employees to commit theft in houses where they were deployed. In this case, the accused/A1 is the main accused, has been arrested, and out of 19½ of sovereigns, 4 sovereigns of silver articles have been recovered. He also submitted that the investigation is still pending. Hence, he vehemently opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶5Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the petitioners and also taking note of the ongoing investigation, this court is of the view that these petitioners does not deserve anticipatory bail since there is likelihood of hampering the investigation.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

06.05.2026 gv L.VICTORIA GOWRI.,J gv To

1.The Inspector of Police, Tiruppur North Police Station, Tiruppur City.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

06.05.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.05.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI CRL.O.P.No.10977 of 2026 1.Vanitha 2. Sriram ... Petitioners Versus State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Tiruppur North Police Station, Tiruppur City. (Cr.No.1029 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S, to enlarge the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest by the respondent police, pending investigation of the case in Crime No.1029 of 2025 on the file of the respondent. For Petitioners : Mr. Aswin Prasanna For Respondent : Mr. A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)