Lakshmanan v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner, who has filed this third bail application before this Court for alleged offences punishable under Sections 394 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), in the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page2 of 5

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with other accused persons, broke open the front door of the defacto complainant's house and attempted to force it open with a crowbar. Upon hearing the noise, the defacto complainant resisted the door but was overpowered. The accused persons pushed the defacto complainant, his wife, and his daughter, and threatened to kill them all if they shouted. By putting them under the fear of death, the accused abused them and robbed gold and silver jewelry from the house. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and is not connected with the offences alleged in the complaint. It is further submitted that this is the third bail application filed before this Court on behalf of the petitioner, who has been in judicial custody for a substantial duration, and hence, the counsel prayed for the grant of bail.

¶4The said contention was strongly opposed by the learned Government Counsel (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent, who reiterated the severe case of the prosecution. He submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender with 55 previous cases pending against him. He rightly contended that since the extensive criminal track record of the petitioner, there is every possibility of recidivism, and enlarging the petitioner on bail would pose a severe threat to Page3 of 5 society and delay the trial proceedings.

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

¶6Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the submissions made by the learned Government Counsel, this Court is of the opinion that the extreme gravity of the offense involving a violent housebreaking and robbery at knife-point, terrifying an entire family inside their home. Furthermore, the petitioner's criminal antecedents of 55 previous cases demonstrate that he is a seasoned offender, raising an undeniable possibility of recidivism if released. Releasing the petitioner would not only endanger public safety but would also severely disrupt and delay the trial. Consequently, in the interest of securing a speedy disposal of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.

¶7Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 08-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Jeni Page4 of 5 To

1.The Principal Session Judge, Chengalpattu.

2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.

3.The Inspector of Police, Acharapakkam Police Station, Chengalpattu.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. CRLoOPoNo.o13634oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. Jeni CRLoOPoNo.o13634oofo2026 08-06-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Lakshmanan ..Petitioner(s) Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by The Inspector of Police Acharapakkam Police Station, Chengalpattu. (Crime No.308/2022) ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to enlarge and release the petitioner on bail in Crime No.308 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent police and pass such further or other order. For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)