Bhavankumar v. State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Bhavankumar

2. Lingeshwaran ..Petitioners Vs State represented by The Inspector of Police Puzhal Police Station, Chennai District.

Crime No. 50/2026.

..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No. 50 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners:

Mr.Y.Dhana Sekar For Respondent:

Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.01.2026 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 296(b), 118(1), 115(2), 125, 309(4), 311, 351(3) of BNS Act in Crime No.50 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on the date of occurrence, the petitioners along with other accused persons allegedly waylaid the defacto complainant, demanded money from him and when he refused, they abused him in filthy language, assaulted him and extorted a sum of Rs.4,000/- at knife point. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were arrested on 13.01.2026 and since then they have been in judicial custody. The learned counsel would further submit that the present case is a false and foisted case. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent strongly opposed the bail application on the ground that petitioners have four and three previous criminal cases pending against them respectively, and would further submit that this is the second bail petition filed by the petitioners and there is no change in circumstances. He would further submit that if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there are every possibility of them committing further offences and disturbing public peace. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6. From the submission of the learned counsel on either side, considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioners, and from the absence of change in circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 12-03-2026 sma To

1. The Inspector of Police Puzhal Police Station, Chennai District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

sma 12-03-2026