Shajahan v. State Rep.By Its, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Shajahan

2. Masthan @ Masthan Ahmed ..Petitioners Vs State rep.by its, The Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Taluk Police Station, Ranipet District.

(Crime No.92 of 2026) ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with in Crime No. 92 of 2026 pending on the file of the Respondent Police.

For Petitioner:

Mr.D.Dayalan For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 351(2) & 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Act, 2023 (294(b), 323, 506(i) & 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860) in Crime No.92 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and when the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, the petitioners used filthy languages and caused hurt to the complainant's wife by using hands and made criminal intimidation. Hence, the case was registered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the case of the prosecution is only relating to rash and negligent driving and the petitioner has not committed any serious offence as alleged. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that the petitioners are ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and when the same was questioned, the petitioners assaulted them. The learned Government Advocate would strongly oppose the application stating that the petitioners' conduct is serious in nature and affects public safety. It is also submitted that the investigation is in progress and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required. Hence, he strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

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

6. This Court is of the view that from the submission of the learned counsel on either side, it is seen that the petitioner is alleged to have driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and when the same was questioned, the petitioners have assaulted them. Considering the gravity of the offence and the manner in which the occurrence has taken place, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 16-03-2026 NSL To

1. The Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Taluk Police Station, Ranipet District. .

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

NSL 16-03-2026