Balasubramani v. The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 13.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1.Balasubramani 2.Banumathi ... Petitioners/A1 & A2 Vs.

The Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police Station, Tiruppur District.

... Respondent (Crime No.86 of 2026) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest pending investigation in Crime No.86 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioners :

Mr.Shunmugarajeswaran.T For Respondent :

Mr.P.Dhileepan, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervenor :

Mr.E.Sabarivasan

O R D E R

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 115(2), 118(1), 329(3) and 351(3) of BNS Act (Corresponding IPC Sections 294, 323, 324, 448, 506(ii) of IPC) in Crime No.86 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail. 1/4

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that due to land dispute the petitioners picked up quarrel with the defacto complainant and assaulted him with stick and sickle and thereby caused injury to the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the defacto complainant and the petitioners are close relatives and that due to land dispute already exists between them a false complaint has been lodged against the petitioners and that they are nothing to do with the alleged offence. He further submitted that they are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court and they are ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that, A1 attacked him with wooden log and A2 assaulted him with Aruval and thereby the defacto complainant took treatment as inpatient for a period of 11 days. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

2/4

5. From the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) this is a case of severe injuries caused to the defacto complainant and thereby the defacto complainant took treatment as inpatient for a period of 11 days. The long duration of treatment, which demonstrate the severity of the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant. In such view of the peculiar circumstances, this Court is of the view that, it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.

6. Accordingly this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 13.03.2026 ssi To:

1.The Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police Station, Tiruppur District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN , J.

ssi 3/4

13.03.2026 4/4