Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14794 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 20.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD). No. 14794 of 2026 K.Karthikeyan ...Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Somanthapuram Police Station, Sivagangai District. (Crime No.42 of 2026) ...Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Laxman Advocate For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 42 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :-The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.06.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 305@ 305, 317 of BNS , in Crime No.42 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14794 of 2026 bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein joining hands with other accused involved in steeling of gold jewels to the extent of 6 ½ sovereigns belongs to the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint was lodged. The case was registered. The petitioner and four others were arrested.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submitted that the petitioner is only the receiver of gold property and not directly involved in steeling of property. The petitioner is in custody from 18.06.2026 and ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the State reiterated the prosecution case and reported that there are totally five accused in this case. Out of the 6 ½ sovereigns of gold jewels, only 38 grams alone was recovered. Investigation in his case is still pending. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14794 of 2026 5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the fact that the co-accused have already been granted bail and that the overt act attributed to the petitioner is that, despite being aware of the theft of the gold jewels from the house, where he was staying along with the other accused, he did not disclose the same to anyone, and that he subsequently met the other accused and received 4 grams of gold jewels as his share, which have since been recovered from him, this Court also takes note of the fact that, out of the 52 grams of gold jewels allegedly stolen, 38 grams have been recovered. Further, the petitioner is not involved in any previous criminal case. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions. [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily, at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks, thereafter as and 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14794 of 2026 when required for interrogation; [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he/she is suspected;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the 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)AIR SCW 51730]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS. (K R S J) 20.07.2026 TM 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14794 of 2026 To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Somanthapuram Police Station, Sivagangai District. (Crime No.42 of 2026) 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Thiruppathur. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14794 of 2026 K. RAJASEKAR, J. TM ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 14794 of 2026 Date : 20.07.2026 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14794 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 20.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD). No. 14794 of 2026 K.Karthikeyan ...Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Somanthapuram Police Station, Sivagangai District. (Crime No.42 of 2026) ...Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Laxman Advocate For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 42 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :-The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.06.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 305@ 305, 317 of BNS , in Crime No.42 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14794 of 2026 bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein joining hands with other accused involved in steeling of gold jewels to the extent of 6 ½ sovereigns belongs to the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint was lodged. The case was registered. The petitioner and four others were arrested.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submitted that the petitioner is only the receiver of gold property and not directly involved in steeling of property. The petitioner is in custody from 18.06.2026 and ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the State reiterated the prosecution case and reported that there are totally five accused in this case. Out of the 6 ½ sovereigns of gold jewels, only 38 grams alone was recovered. Investigation in his case is still pending. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14794 of 2026 5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the fact that the co-accused have already been granted bail and that the overt act attributed to the petitioner is that, despite being aware of the theft of the gold jewels from the house, where he was staying along with the other accused, he did not disclose the same to anyone, and that he subsequently met the other accused and received 4 grams of gold jewels as his share, which have since been recovered from him, this Court also takes note of the fact that, out of the 52 grams of gold jewels allegedly stolen, 38 grams have been recovered. Further, the petitioner is not involved in any previous criminal case. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions. [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily, at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks, thereafter as and 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14794 of 2026 when required for interrogation; [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he/she is suspected;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the 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)AIR SCW 51730]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS. (K R S J) 20.07.2026 TM 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14794 of 2026 To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Somanthapuram Police Station, Sivagangai District. (Crime No.42 of 2026) 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Thiruppathur. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14794 of 2026 K. RAJASEKAR, J. TM ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 14794 of 2026 Date : 20.07.2026 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis