Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 34357 (MAD)

Hecte Rajesh Raja, v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by

CRL OP(MD)/9875/2026 · 2026-06-03

P Dhanabal

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9875 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 03.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 9875 of 2026 1.Hecte Rajesh Raja 2.Chandrakumar ... Petitioners Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Town Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.65 of 2026) ...Respondents/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.Sakthikumar for Mr.M.Keerthi Prasanna Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl. side) Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 65 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 303(2) of BNS, in Crime No.65 of 2026, 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9875 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.02.2026 the petitioners who are working under the defacto complainant stolen the Car along with Rs.50,00,000/-. Hence, the complaint. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are in no way connected in the above said incident. They have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The defacto complainant asked the petitioners to purchase some gold and silver ornaments from Kerala and also asked them to go there by his Car. While they travelling to Kerala, they parked the Car for small coffee break near a Coffee shop at Thirumangalam, at that time the second petitioner stolen the Car along with money. Then the first petitioner called the defacto complainant and narrated the incident. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioners. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the offences are grave in nature. The petitioners are the workers under the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant running jewellary business. While so, he 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9875 of 2026 asked the petitioners to purchase some gold and silver ornaments from Kerala and asked them to go by his Car. Taking advantage of this, the petitioners conspired together, stolen the Car along with the money Rs.50 lakhs. The petitioners have no previous cases. He vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5.The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the petitioners are the employees of the defacto complainant. When the defacto complainant entrusted with the employees for purchase of gold and silver ornaments in a Car bearing Registration No.59 CF 8892 Swift Dezire along with Rs.50,00,000/-. They stopped the Car near Thirumangalam and thereafter the Car was stolen along with the money. Immediately they gave the complaint and thereafter they came to know that these petitioners only taken the Car with some other persons and thereby they committed serious offence. Hence, he strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records. 7. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners, these petitioners are none other thatn 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9875 of 2026 the employees of the defacto complainant, even as per the FIR there is no mention about the money involved in this case and the Car bearing Registration No.59 CF 8892 Swift Dezire alone was taken by some other person, the first petitioner also accompanied with the defacto complainant while lodging the complaint, the petitioners are not named accused in the FIR, the petitioners also co-operated for investigation, the FIR has been registered on 23.02.2026, by this time most of the investigation might to have been completed, there is no previous case against the petitioners, and also considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police at 10.30 a.m., on every Saturday for a period of four weeks, thereafter 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9875 of 2026 as and when required for interrogation; [c] the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature. [d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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. (P D B J) 03.06.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam. 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9875 of 2026 2.The Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Town Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.65 of 2026) 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9875 of 2026 P. DHANABAL, J. TM ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 9875 of 2026 Date : 03.06.2026 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis