Krishnaveni v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Thallakulam

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 29/04/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Krishnaveni ... Petitioner/Accused

Rank Not Known Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai City. Crime No. 216 of 2026. ... Respondent/Complainant ( Amended vide order dated 29.04.2026 in Crl.OP(MD)No. 7677 of 2026 by PDBJ) PRAYER :-For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 216 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police. For Petitioner : S.Sathyachidambaram, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottaichamy, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Finance Company: Mr.V.Balaji ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 305(a) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.216 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are the neighbours and A2 is the own brother of the defacto complainant. The petitioner and the other accused stolen the gold jewels of the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and she was falsely implicated in this case and she has no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that A2 voluntarily handed over the jewels and requested her to pledge the same in a bank and now, a part of the jewels were recovered and no previous case is pending against the petitioner. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioner and the other accused stolen the gold jewels of the defacto complainant and the investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He would further submit that a part of the jewels were recovered from the Suvithas Finance Company and no previous case is pending against the petitioner.

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

¶6Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, and already a part of the jewels were recovered from the Suvithas Finance Company and no previous case is pending against the petitioner, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to 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 Judicial Magistrate No.2, Madurai District, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of 30 days, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation. [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature. [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the 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)AIR SCW 5560]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

29.04.2026 dss

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Madurai District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai City.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. P. DHANABAL,J DSS ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.7677 of 2026 Date : 29/04/2026