Kalaiselvan v. The State Represented by the Inspector of Police

O R D E R The petitioner herein apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C., in Crime No.102 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The petitioner herein apprehends arrest on the basis of a complaint alleging that a camera worth about Rs.1,00,000/-, which had been rented to the petitioner, has been misplaced. Hence, the present case.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner is an innocent person who has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay the value of the camera. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police while opposing for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case.

¶5Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶6In view of the undertaking given, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

¶7Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1, Thiruvannamalai District, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: [a] 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 the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30a.m., until further orders and he is further directed to co-operate with the investigation; [c] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283]; [d] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

15.09.2025 nvi To

¶1The Judicial Magistrate 1, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶2The Inspector of Police, Thachampet Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶3The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,

J. nvi

15.09.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.09.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN Kalaiselvan ... Petitioner Vs. The State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Thachampet Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District. (Crime No.102 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police in connection to the FIR in Crime No.102 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.Balaji Arunachalam For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side) **********