Priyadharshan v. The State Represented By, Its Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Priyadharshan ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State represented By, its Inspector of Police D-8, Guduvanchery Police Station, Chengalpattu District.

..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS, pleased to direct the Respondent to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of arrest of the Petitioner in the Crime No. 0250 of 2025 pending on the file of the Respondent.

For Petitioner(s):

M/s.Manikandan S For Respondent(s):

Mr.P.Dhileepan GovernmentAdvocate (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 191 (2), 191 (3), 296 (b), 333, 109 (1), 118 (1), 351 (3) of BNS, 2023, r/w Section 3 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908, and Section 25 (1A) of Arms Act, 1959, in Crime No.0250 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto-complainant runs a tender coconut shop. On the day of the incident, the petitioner and his friends were allegedly consuming Ganja in front of the shop. When the defacto-

complainant warned them to leave, the petitioners thrown country bomb causing him serious injuries to the defacto-complainant. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and that he is ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and further submitted that petitioner has three previous cases of which one is NDPS offence and has been regularly doing similar nature of offences. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

5.From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), it is pellucid that the petitioner has misused the liberty which had been granted by this Court in earlier point of time. Hence, this is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed.

16-04-2026 ep

To 1.The Inspector of Police D-8, Guduvanchery Police Station, Chengalpattu District.

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

ep 16-04-2026