Singaravelan v. The State Rep By, the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 115(2) and 75(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 1998, in Crime No.185 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that both the de facto complainant and the petitioners are members of a joint family and that the dispute arose due to the division of the family jewels. It is alleged that all the three accused committed theft of about 60 sovereigns of gold jewels, which were allegedly kept in the dashboard of a car. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the de facto complainant is none other than the maternal uncle of the petitioners and that the alleged stolen jewels, in fact, belong to the mother of the first petitioner. It is the contention of the learned counsel that, in collusion with the sister of the de facto complainant, a false complaint has been lodged claiming a share over the said jewels. It is Page3 of 6 further submitted that the first petitioner is running a construction business from his residence and that the parties are close family members. According to the petitioners, the dispute has arisen solely on account of the sharing of family jewels. He would further submit that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court and they are willing to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the case of the prosecution and vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The learned Government Advocate fairly submitted that both the de facto complainant and the petitioners are members of a joint family and that the dispute essentially pertains to the division of the family jewels. The prosecution allegation is that all the three accused committed theft of about 60 sovereigns of gold jewels, which were allegedly kept in the dashboard of a car.

¶5From the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, it is seen that the entire issue arose only for division of jewels in between the family members. Considering the close familial relationship between the parties, the nature of the dispute, and the admitted fact that there is an existing dispute regarding the division of the jewels, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary for the purpose of Page4 of 6 investigation. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain following conditions.

¶6Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate -II, Alandur, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), each with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:

(a) If the petitioners fail to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;

(c) The first petitioner alone shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; Insofar as petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, this Court dispenses with the condition of reporting before the respondent police. Page5 of 6

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e) If the petitioners thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 01-07-2026 JRS To

¶1The Judicial Magistrate-II, Alandur.

¶2The Inspector of Police S7 Madipakkam Police Station, Chennai. Crime No.270 of 2026

¶3The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. CRLoOPoNo.o16676oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. JRS CRLoOPoNo.o16676oofo2026 01-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1. Singaravelan S/o Mani, No.2/12, Kamakoti Street, Madipakkam, Chennai. 2. S.Sanjay S/o Singaravelan, No.2/12, Kamakoti Street, Madipakkam, Chennai. 3. Pradhosh S/o Suresh Kumar, 2/16 V Rajan Street, Ponniammankoil, Madipakkam, Chennai. ..Petitioners/ Accused 1 - 3 Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police S7 Madipakkam Police Station, Chennai. Crime No.270 of 2026 ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner herein on Anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the Crime No.270 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. Page2 of 6 For Petitioner(s): Mr.Satish K For Respondent(s): Ms.R.S.Indira, Govt.Advocate (crl.Side)