Deeparaj v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25(1) of the Arms Act, in Crime No.274 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. Page2 of 4

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with the co-accused, allegedly trespassed into the defacto complainant's roadside breakfast shop. It is further alleged that they subsequently dismantled the said shop and threw it into a nearby pond, thereby causing significant damage to the property. Hence, the present case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and that his name has been implicated without any legal basis. He has further stated that there is no material to establish his participation in the alleged occurrence and that he was neither present at the place of occurrence nor involved in the incident in any manner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. He submitted that the investigation is at a very nascent stage and recovery of the weapons/materials is yet to be effected. He further argued that given the serious nature of the allegations, which include offences under the Arms Act, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary to unearth the entire conspiracy. Page3 of 4

¶5Heard both sides and perused the case diary materials.

¶6Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and the specific invocation of Section 25(1) of the Arms Act alongside provisions for criminal trespass and criminal intimidation, this Court is of the firm view that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. The investigation is still underway, and granting anticipatory bail at this stage would severely prejudice the ongoing probe and jeopardize the recovery of crucial material evidence.

¶7Under such circumstances, this Court finds that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶8Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 21-07-2026 GBI To

1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, Thiruvarur Town Police Station, Thiruvarur District. Crime No.274 of 2026

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o19398oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. GBI CRLoOPoNo.o19398oofo2026 21-07-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Deeparaj ..Petitioner(s) Vs State represented by The Inspector of Police, Thiruvarur Town Police Station, Thiruvarur District. Crime No.274 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023 to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest in Crime No.274 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thiruvarur Town Police Station, Thiruvarur District, on such terms and conditions as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): M/s.P.Venkatesan For Respondent(s): MR.N.PALANIVEL, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE)