Kali v. The State Rep By Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Kali S/o.Raji, No.112, Mariamman Kovil Street, Kallathur, Tiruvannamalai, Tamilnadu - 606710.

...Petitioner/A1

Vs The State Rep by Inspector of Police, Chengum Police Station, Tiruvanamalai District.

...Respondent/

Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, to enlarge the Petitioner on Anticipatory Bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.306 of 2025 on the file Chengum Police Station the respondent police or on surrendering before the court.

For Petitioner:

Mr.A.Vijayakumar For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioner/A1, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 132, 121(1), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, in Crime No.306 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner/A1 is that the petitioner was involved in attacking the Forest Guard while the said Forest Guard was on duty and was taking custody of one of the accused involved in the cutting of Neem trees. It is further alleged that the petitioner/A1 attempted to rescue the said accused. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the de-facto complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and he is ready to cooperate 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 case and, upon instructions,

submitted that the petitioner has cut down the four Neem trees, and when this was questioned by the officials, he assaulted the officials. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent.

6. From the submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), the petitioner cut down the four Neem trees and when this was questioned by the officials, he assaulted the officials. The nature of the allegation clearly shows that the petitioner does not deserve any anticipatory bail, and apart from that, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that there is no change in circumstances. Hence, considering the totality of the above circumstances, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 18-03-2026 dk

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Chengam.

2. The Inspector of Police, Chengum Police Station, Tiruvanamalai District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

dk CRL OP No. 7141 of 2026 18-03-2026