Vignesh @ Vicky v. State By Its, Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Vignesh @ Vicky

2. Pachaiyappan ..Petitioners Vs State by its, Inspector of Police, Nemili Police station Nemili, Ranipet District.

(Crime.No.53 /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 Crime No. 53 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent. For Petitioners:

Mr.K.G.Senthil Kumar For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioners apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 118(1) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No.53 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Morish Manoh, who is running a tea shop and residing adjacent to the petitioners, lodged a complaint stating that due to previous enmity, the petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant on

his head using an iron rod, causing injuries. Hence, the case was registered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is submitted that the complaint has been lodged with ulterior motive due to previous enmity between the parties. It is also submitted that the petitioners are permanent residents and will not abscond or tamper with witnesses. The learned counsel would further contend that the petitioners are ready to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any condition imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant with an iron rod, causing injuries and due to the said occurrence, the defacto complainant was hospitalized for three days. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would further submitted that the investigation is still at a preliminary stage. Hence, he strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

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, it is seen that the allegation against the petitioners is that they assaulted the defacto complainant using an iron rod and caused injuries, for which he was hospitalized for three days. Considering the nature of the weapon used and the seriousness of the injuries sustained, this Court finds that the allegation is grave in nature. It is also seen that the investigation is at a preliminary stage and at this juncture, if the petitioners are enlarged on anticipatory bail, it may affect the investigation. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioners does not deserve anticipatory bail.

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

1. The Inspector of Police, Nemili Police station Nemili, Ranipet District.

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

NSL 24-03-2026