K Ashokkumar Vs The state rep.by, The Inspector of Police

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CRL OP NO. 416 of 2026

K.Ashok Kumar

Petitioner

Vs

The State rep. by The Inspector of Police Bagayam Police Station Vellore District-632 007 Crime No. 354 of 2025.

¶6

Respondent

¶7

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest pending investigation in Cr.No. 354 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muralikrishnan For Respondent : Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Criminal Side) ----

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent

¶11

police for the offences punishable under Sections 331(3), 305(a) of BNS 2023 in Crime No. 354 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶12

1/6

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

The allegation against the petitioner is that on 13.12.2025 at about

¶15

17.00 hours, the petitioner joined hands with other co-accused entered into the house of the de-facto complainant and taken away cash of Rs.2,45,000/and one pair of silver anklets. The petitioner is the husband of A1. In this regard, A1 and A2 were already arrested and still in custody. Hence the case.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is

¶17

the husband of A1 and on the suspicion, he has been falsely implicated in this case as an accused. He also submitted that the properties are not recovered. Hence, he prayed to grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶18

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the

¶19

respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the properties are not recovered from the petitioner and the petitioner is ranked as A3 in this case and A1 & A2 were already arrested and still in custody.

¶20

However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶21

2/6

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

Considering the overt-act against the petitioner; that the silver

¶24

articles only recovered; that A1 and A2 were already arrested and still in custody; that Rs.75,000/- alone has been recovered, remaining yet to be recovered, hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶25