Imdad Shariff v. The State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Imdad Shariff, S/o.Ahamed Basha ... Petitioner Vs.

The State, rep. by The Inspector of Police, Bagayam Police Station, Vellore District.

(crime No.216 of 2025) ... Respondent 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 arrest in connection with crime No.216 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhileepan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner herein apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 296(b), 76 and 351(3) of BNS Act, 2023 read with Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 in Crime No. 216 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

1/4

2. The prosecution of the case is that while the de-facto complainant was sleep inside her house along with her son, the petitioner sneak into the house and attempted to commit rape. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It was further submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation and abide by any other stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for the 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 there is one previous case pending against the petitioner under the Arms Act. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration of the severity of the allegation and on the fact that the petitioner has one previous case, this Court is of the view that, if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he may misuse the liberty granted by this Court by again committing these type of offences. Hence, this 2/4

Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed. 01.04.2026 mp To 1.The Inspector of Police, Bagayam Police Station, Vellore District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 3/4

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

mp Crl.OP.No.8152 of 2026 01.04.2026 4/4