Sumathi v. The State Rep by Represented by the Station House Officer

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 306 and 318(4) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.0111 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. Page2 of 4

¶2The allegation against the petitioner is that she committed theft of gold jewellery, Rs.20 lakhs in cash, and a TVS motorcycle from the de facto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged by the de facto complainant. He further submitted that even according to a letter addressed by the de facto complainant to the District Collector dated 06.01.2026, it is stated that the petitioner alone takes care of her by providing food. However, due to an internal family dispute between the de facto complainant's family and their relatives, a false complaint has been lodged against the petitioner. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the de facto complainant is a 91-year-old woman. Taking advantage of her advanced age, the petitioner transferred a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs from the de facto complainant's account to her own account. He further submitted that neither the said cash nor the alleged stolen gold jewels have been recovered, and only the TVS motorcycle has been seized. In support of this contention, the learned Government Advocate produced the bank account statement of the de facto complainant and, therefore, opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the Page3 of 4 petitioner.

¶5I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by both sides and have perused the materials available on record.

¶6From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and upon perusing the de facto complainant's bank account, it is seen that a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs was transferred to the petitioner on different dates. In view of the submissions, since the stolen property has not yet been recovered, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate, enlarging the petitioner on bail would cause serious prejudice to the prosecution's case. Hence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 08-07-2026 DRL To

1.The Station House Officer Lawspet Police Station, Puducherry District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, Puducherry. CRLoOPoNo.o17125oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. DRL CRLoOPoNo.o17125oofo2026 08-07-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Sumathi W/o.Arunachalam, Residing at Kamban Nagar, Reddiarpalayam, Puducherry. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep by Represented by the Station House Officer Lawspet Police Station, Puducherry District. Crime No.0111 of 2026. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on Anticipatory Bail in the event of his arrest the Respondent Police in Crime no.0111 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police, The Inspector of Police, Lawspet Police Station, Puducherry, Puducherry District. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Avinash Wadhwani For Respondent(s): Ms.G.Djearany, Government Advocate (Puducherry)