Sanjay v. The State

Crl.O.P.No.20419 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22-09-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K. RAJASEKARCRL OP NO.20419 of 2025 Sanjay... Petitioner/ A2 VsThe State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Thimmampettai Police Station, Thirupathur District. (Crime No.20 of 2025)... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest by the respondent police concerned in Crime No.20 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s): Mr. E. KannadasanFor Respondent(s): Mr. S. Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)*******1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20419 of 2025ORDERThe petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 194 of BNSS 2023 (Under Section 174 of Cr.P.C) subsequently, altered into 333, 103(1), 238, 61(2)(a) of BNS (Under Sections 452, 302, 201, 120(B0 of IPC) in Crime No.20 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

The allegation against this petitioner/ A2 is that, the petitioner had an illicit intimacy with the wife of the deceased, who is arrayed as A1 in this case, since this intimacy was questioned by the deceased, the petitioner herein engaged other accused to murder the deceased and subsequently, other accused conspired between them and entered into the house of the deceased and murdered the deceased, while he was sleeping. Hence, this case.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case and he was on abroad, while the date of occurrence and he did not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and sought for anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20419 of 20254. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent while opposing the anticipatory bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and states that the petitioner is the main accused in this case and the whereabouts of the petitioner is not known; and that the investigation is pending.

Considering the facts, grave nature of allegation and the fact that the investigation is not completed, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.