Ananthaselvan vs State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 16.09.2026 for the alleged offences under Section 309(4) @ 310(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.326 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, along with six others impersonated police officers and robbed the defacto complainant of Rs.11,00,000/- and a laptop. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitoner has been in judicial custody since 16.09.2026. He further submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the Petitioner.

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that out of the total robbed amount of Rs.11,00,000/-, a sum of Rs.4,45,000/- had been recovered and that the investigation is pending. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner.

I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

It is a case of robbery. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with six others, impersonated police officers and robbed a sum of Rs.11 lakhs and a laptop from the defacto complainant. Out of the robbed amount, a sum of Rs.4,45,000/- has been recovered from the petitioner and the balance amount is yet to be recovered. The investigation is pending. Considering the nature of the allegations, the period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner and that the part of the amount has been recovered, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, and on further conditions that:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police twice daily at 10.30 a.m., and 5.30 p.m., until further orders;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[e] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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)13 SCC 283];

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.