Vinoth @ Vinothkumar v. The State Rep.By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Vinoth @ Vinothkumar ..Petitioner Vs The State: represented by, The Sub Inspector of Police, Perunagar Police Station, Kancheepuram District.

Crime No.16 of 2026.

..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to grant bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police in Crime No.16 of 2026 on the file of Sub Inspector of Police, Perunagar Police Station, Kancheepuram District. For Petitioner:

Mr.A.Suresh For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No.16 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/accused attacked the defacto complainant and caused injuries including on the head and neck, using a knife. Hence, the case was registered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the defacto complainant is a relative of the petitioner and due to certain family disputes, the complaint has been lodged. The learned counsel would further submit that the injured has already been discharged from the hospital. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and will not abscond or tamper with witnesses. 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 attacked the defacto complainant with a knife and caused injuries on the neck and head. It is further submitted that the place of attack clearly indicates the seriousness of the offence. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the injured was hospitalized for about four days. 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. Considering the submission of the learned counsel on either side, though it is contended that the parties are relatives and the injured has been discharged, the allegation against the petitioner is grave in nature. Further,

considering if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, it may cause mental trauma to the defacto complainant and may lead to law and order problem. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 24-03-2026 NSL To

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Perunagar Police Station, Kancheepuram District.

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

NSL 24-03-2026