Karthikeyan @ Nama Karthi v. State Rep.By Its, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 10.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Karthikeyan @ Nama Karthi ... Petitioner/A1 Vs.

State rep by its Inspector of Police, Puliampatti Police Station, Erode District.

... Respondent (Crime No.361 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest pending investigation in Crime No.361 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.T.Shanmugam For Respondent :

Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 308(4), 303 and 351(3) of BNS in Crime No.361 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner assaulted the defacto 1/4

complainant by using pipe that too in a market place and also snatched away a sum of Rs.23,000/- and also threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution's case and, upon instructions, would submit that the petitioner has got 6 previous cases of similar in nature out of which one case was already disposed of. He would further submit that the incident has taken place only when the defacto complainant demanded the money borrowed by the petitioner. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 2/4

6. In such view of the serious allegation and also taking into consideration of his previous criminal antecedents, this Court is not inclined to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 10.03.2026 ssi To:

1.The Inspector of Police, Puliampatti Police Station, Erode District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN,J., ssi 3/4

10.03.2026 4/4