R.Sudharaman v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Orathanadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 21.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD)No.14943 of 2026 R.Sudharman ... Petitioner / Accused No.2

Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Orathanadu Police Station, Thanjavur District. (Crime No.91 of 2026) ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.91 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, or on his appearance. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gurumoorthy

For Respondent : Mr.J.Vishnu, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.91 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, registered for the offences punishable under Section 304 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that, on 21.02.2026, when the defacto complainant alighted from a bus carrying a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- for the purpose of handing it over to one Senthil and Chandrasekar, six accused, including the petitioner herein, arrived in a car, forcibly intercepted the defacto complainant, pulled him down, and robbed him of the said amount. Accordingly, the present case came to be registered.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, though the petitioner's earlier bail applications were dismissed by this Court, there has been a subsequent development inasmuch as a substantial portion of the alleged robbed amount has already been recovered. According to the learned counsel, only a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- remains to be recovered. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reiterated the case of the prosecution and submitted that, though a portion of the robbed amount has been recovered, a sum of about Rs.6,00,000/- is still to be recovered and the investigation is at a crucial stage. Therefore, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶5This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶6It is seen that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail. The said petition was dismissed by this Court after considering the materials available on record. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: " 6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and considering the nature of offence and the fact tht investigation is not yet completed and the fact that only part of the properties has been recovered and remaining amount have to be recovered, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage. 7. Hence the petition stands dismissed."

¶7The present petition is the third application seeking anticipatory bail. Except for the contention that a portion of the alleged robbed amount has since been recovered, no material change in circumstances has been brought to the notice of this Court so as to warrant reconsideration of the earlier order. In the absence of any such substantial change in circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

21.07.2026 pal To

1.The Inspector of Police, Orathanadu Police Station, Thanjavur District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRLoOP(MD).oNo.14943oofo2026 oK.oRAJASEKARoo,Jo. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopal ORDER oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN oooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.14943oofo2026 Dateoo:o21.07.2026