Pugazhenthi v. The Sate Rep.By, The Station House Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Pugazhenthi S/o Vasudevan, 38, Amman Kovil Street, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs The Sate Rep.by, The Station House Officer Chidambaram Town Police Station, Cuddalore District.

(In Crime No. 402 of 2025) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: To enlarge the Petitioners on bail in the event of arrest, in Crime No. 402 of 2025 on the file of Respondent Police. For Petitioner(s):

Ragul Kousik For Respondent(s):

M/S.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2) and 324 of BNS r/w. Section 4 of TNPWH Act in Crime No. 402 of 2025, seeks

anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner joined hands with another accused, came to the medical shop run by the defacto complainant and demanded tablets without any prescription, when she refused to handover, the petitioner threatened and scolded her and also abused her, unable to bear the same, she called her husband and after arrival of her husband, the accused attacked him and also kicked him on his hand and caused a fracture on his left hand and also damaged the door of the shop. Thereafter, the injured was admitted to the hospital and the case was registered.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case of quarrel between the parties and he is not involved in the alleged offence and is ready to co-operate with the investigation. Therefore, prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner has caused a fracture to the defacto complainant's husband and also threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences and apart from that, the petitioner is having one previous case of a similar nature. Hence, she opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the fact that the petitioner is also having bad antecedents and also the fact that he has caused severe injuries to the victim in this case, and if the petitioner is granted bail, he will indulge in similar offences, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

09-02-2026 MPA To

1. The Sate Rep.by, The Station House Officer Chidambaram Town Police Station, Cuddalore District.

(In Crime No. 402 of 2025) 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

MPA 09-02-2026