S.Ajith v. State, Rep. By Through The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN S.Ajith S/o. Shanmugam, 185 Pillaiyar Kovil Street, Kolakudi, Nedupattu, Tiruvamiamalai - 606808 ..Petitioner(s) Vs State, Rep. by through the Inspector of Police, Veraiyur Police Station, Tiruvannamalai.

Cr.No. 15/2026 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to direct the release of the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the police in Crime No. 15/2026 on the file of Respondent, the Inspector of Police, Veraiyur Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

K.Siri Chandana For Respondent(s):

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

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 351(3) of BNS, in Crime No.15 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that during the temple festival, a wordy quarrel arose between the parties, during which the petitioner abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and attacked him with a knife, causing grievous injuries. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and there is no previous case pending against the petitioner. However, opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

6. From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate, it is seen that the injury sustained by the de facto complainant is serious in nature and that he was admitted to the hospital on 17.02.2026 and took treatment till

24.02.2026. Taking into consideration the duration of the treatment undergone by the de facto complainant, this Court is able to visualize the seriousness of the injury.

7. Apart from that, this Court has also seen the photographs of the injury, wherein the intestine of the de facto complainant had protruded out. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, according to the FIR, the stab injury was inflicted by one Patchamuthu and that, as against this petitioner, there is no overt act.

8. However, on perusing the averments, this Court is not in a position to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In such a grievous matter, if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, it would send a wrong signal to society and people may be emboldened to indulge in such activities. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 13-03-2026 MPA To 1.The Inspector of Police, Veraiyur Police Station, Tiruvannamalai.

Cr.No. 15/2026 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

MPA 13-03-2026