Kalaiarasan Vs State represented by The Inspector of Police

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, to enlarge the Petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest by the respondent police in Crime No. 372 of 2025 on the file of Neyveli Township Police Station, Cuddalore District.

¶11

For Petitioner : M/s.Chandrasekar Sundarraj

¶12

For Respondent:

¶13

Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner/A4, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under

¶16

Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, in Crime No.372 of 2025, on

¶17

the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶18

Page1 of 5

¶19

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

¶20

CRL OP No.7149 of 2026

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had committed a theft

¶22

of a Toyota Innova car bearing Reg.No.PY 05 VF 5327. Hence, the case.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner/A4 submitted that the petitioner

¶24

is innocent and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the de-facto complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and he is ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶25

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that two previous cases have been registered against the petitioner. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent.

¶27

__________ Page2 of 5

¶28

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

¶29

CRL OP No.7149 of 2026

¶30

From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate

¶31

(Crl.Side), the petitioner has got two previous cases involving the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, (TNPPDL Act), and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Considering the nature of the allegation against this petitioner and considering his past conduct, this Court is

¶32

of the firm view that, as and when the petitioner was enlarged on bail, he subverted the justice and misused the liberty. Hence, he does not deserve anticipatory bail.

¶33