M.Ramesh v. State Rep By Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Crl.OP.No. 6135 of 2026 M.Ramesh ..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep by Inspector of Police H-4 Korukkupet Police Station, Chennai.

Crime No.66/2026.

..Respondent(s) 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 his arrest pending investigation in Crime No. 66 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.P.Prince Premkumar For Respondent(s):

P.Dhileepan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 121(1) and 351(3) of BNS, in Crime No.66 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the de facto complainant is the Sub Inspector of Police and due to a wordy quarrel, the petitioner along with the other accused, abused and assaulted the de facto complainant, due to which, the

de facto complainant sustained grievous injury all over his body. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner and he has been falsely implicated in this case and that he is no way connected to this case. Hence, he seeks this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) while opposing grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner submitted that the petitioner along with the other accused have brutally attacked the de facto complainant and caused severe injury. He further submits that the occurrence took place near a TASMAC.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this is a case where the petitioner assaulted the de facto complainant who is a public servant and caused injury to him. In this regard, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has also submitted copies of the photographs before this Court in order to show the nature of injury sustained by the de facto complainant. Considering the gravity of the allegations, and taking into

consideration of consequences of granting anticipatory bail in such nature of the offence in the society at large, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed.

10.03.2026 rap To

1. The Inspector of Police H-4 Korukkupet Police Station, Chennai.

2. The XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

rap Crl.OP.No. 6135 of 2026 10.03.2026