Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 110970 (MAD)

Umakanth v. State, represented by The Inspector of Police,

CRL OP/28070/2025 · 2025-10-15

K Rajasekar

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Crl.OP.No.28070of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.10.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.28070 of 2025 1.Umakanth 2.Vignesh Kumar ... Petitioners Vs. The State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Periyapalayam Police Station Thiruvallur District. (Cr.No.269 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest concerned in Crime No.269 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.M.Vetrivel For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ORDER The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Section 305 of BNS Act, in Crime No.269 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners along with other 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.28070of 2025 accused had stolen the crackers worth about Rs.2,38,000/-. Hence, the present complaint. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not indulged in any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and based on the confession of A1, the petitioners were implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and reported that the total value of the crackers is Rs.2,38,000/-, out of which they recovered only Rs.1,38,000/- worth of crackers and the remaining crackers are in possession of the accused. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5. Considering the nature of the allegations made against the petitioners, and taking into account the fact that the remaining properties have to be recovered from the accused, the Court finds that custodial 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.28070of 2025 interrogation is necessary in this case. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 15.10.2025 uma To 1.The Inspector of Police, Periyapalayam Police Station Thiruvallur District. 2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104. K.RAJASEKAR , J. 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.28070of 2025 uma Crl.O.P.No.28070 of 2025 15.10.2025 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis