Krishnaveni v. The State of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Krishnaveni, W/o.Nagasuman ... Petitioner / 1st Accused

Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Thuckalay Police Station, Kanyakumari District. (Crime No.270 of 2026) ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioner / 1st accused on bail in the event of her arrest in the connection with a case in Crime No.270 of 2026 dated 10.06.2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vishnuvardhan, Advocate

For Respondent : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar, Counsel for State of TN (Criminal Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.270 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the BNS, seeks the relief of anticipatory bail.

¶2The allegation against the petitioner is that she joined hands with the 2nd accused in this case and demanded money from the de-facto complainant for the medical expenses of the 2nd accused. Accordingly, they collected five sovereigns of gold jewels and subsequently collected a sum of Rs.33,000/- from the de-facto complainant. Thereafter, they did not return the gold jewels and money. Hence, a complaint was lodged, and the case was registered.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a lady and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the allegation pertains to the year 2024 and that the petitioner has not collected any gold jewels. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶4Per contra, the learned Counsel for State of TN (Criminal Side) submitted that the 2nd accused in this case was arrested and that he is a habitual offender. He further submitted that the 2nd accused joined hands with the petitioner herein and they both involved in such offences. He also submitted that no money or gold jewels have been recovered so far and that the investigation in this case is still pending. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶5Considering the fact that no money or gold jewels have been recovered so far and that the grant of anticipatory bail at this stage would hamper the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶6Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

22.07.2026 mkn To

1.The Inspector of Police, Thuckalay Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRLoOP(MD)No.15108oofo2026 oK.oRAJASEKARoo,oJo. oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooomkn ORDER oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN oooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.15108oofo2026 Dateoo:o22.07.2026