Murali v. State Rep By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Murali.M ... Petitioner Vs.

State Rep. by, Inspector of Police, Pathirivedu Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

... Respondent (Crime No.46 of 2026) 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.46 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.M.Vetrivel 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 296(b), 118(1), 351(2) of BNS Act in Crime No.46 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that due to previous enmity there was wordy quarrel arose between the petitioner and the defacto 1/4

complainant which resulted in hand clash and thereby, the defacto complainant sustained injuries. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted 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 in this regard a counter complaint was also registered by the petitioner against the defacto complainant and that he is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and he is ready to cooperate for 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 assaulted the defacto complainant with slipper and he would fairly submit that no one was injured. However, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

6. From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) this is the case where the petitioner has assaulted the defacto complainant with slippers but no one was injured. Though there is no serious 2/4

injuries sustained by the defacto complainant, the nature of assault made by the petitioner is serious in nature and if the petitioner is enlarged on bail there is every possibility that he may commit the very same act in future without any impunity. Hence, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case for the petitioner to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is also a counter complaint in this regard, that cannot give any extenuating circumstances for the petitioner to get anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 11.03.2026 ssi To:

1.The Inspector of Police, Pathirivedu Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN , J.

ssi 3/4

11.03.2026 4/4