Dhanush v. Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.4884 of 2026 Dhanush S/o Natrajan ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep by The Inspector of Police, Vedaranyam Police Station, Vedaranyam Nagapattinam District ... Respondent (Cr.No.19 of 2026) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Crime No. 19 of 2026 on the file of the The Inspector of Police, Vedaranyam Police Station, Vedaranyam, Nagapattinam District For Petitioner : Mr.R. Muruga Bharathi For Respondent : Mr. A. Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.01.2026 for the offence punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 118(2) and 351(3) of BNS r/w Section 25(1) (A) of Indian Arms Act in Crime No.19 of 2026 registered on the file of respondent police seeks 1/4

bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein compelled the daughter of the defacto complainant to marry him and when the same was objected a POSCO case was filed against the petitioner. Thereafter, on 18.01.2026 the petitioner went to the house of the defacto complainant and attacked the defacto complainant and his family members. Hence a case in crime No.19 of 2026 registered on the file of respondent police.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the defacto complainant family members refused to accept the marriage proposal between the petitioner and daughter of the defacto complainant, a false complaint has been lodged against the petitioner He further submitted that the petitioner is in Judicial custody from 18.01.2026 and he is ready to co-operate with the investigation and abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that apart from the present case the petitioner is having one previous case and the petitioner has attacked totally 4 persons and one 2/4

person was still under treatment. He further submitted that there is no previous cases pending against the petitioner. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner and the fact that even after the victim girl refused to marry the petitioner, the petitioner went to the extent of attacking the family members of the defacto complainant and one person was still under treatment, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 27.02.2026 smn To

1. The Inspector of Police, Vedaranyam Police Station, Vedaranyam Nagapattinam District 2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

3/4

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

smn Crl.O.P.No.4884 of 2026 27.02.2026 4/4