S.Uma Maheswari v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN S.Uma Maheswari ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep by The Inspector of Police, Anamalai Police Station, Anamalai, Coimbatore District.

(Crime No. 93 of 2026) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.93 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Prabhu For Respondent : Mr. P. Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 121(1) and 351(2) of BNS, in Crime No.93 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. 1/4

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with two other male persons, intimidated the police and interfered with them in the discharge of their official duties. Hence, a case has been registered against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner had only questioned the acts of the two other male persons who were present at the place of occurrence place and that they had committed certain mischief against the petitioner. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that there are prima facie materials to show that this petitioner was also a member of the group involved in the occurrence. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

6. From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), it is seen that the petitioner, along with two other male persons, had intimidated the police and interfered with them in the discharge of their official duties. Further, there are prima facie materials available to show that the 2/4

petitioner was also a member of the said group. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 09.03.2026 DRL To 1.The Inspector of Police, Anamalai Police Station, Anamalai, Coimbatore District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3/4

C.KUMARAPPAN.J.

DRL Crl.OP.No.5173 of 2026 09.03.2026 4/4