T.Chandru v. The State Represented By Its Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Mr.T.Chandru, S/o.Mr.Tamilselvan

2. Mr.G.Arumugam, S/o.Mr.Gajendiran

3. Mr.K.Suresh, S/o.Mr.Kuppuraji ... Petitioners Vs.

The State represented by its Inspector of Police, Law & Order, Kalpakkam Police Station, Chengalpattu District.

(Crime No.11 of 2026) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in the above case in Crime No.11 of 2026 which is pending on the file of the respondent Police herein.

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Gavaskar For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhileepan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioners herein apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 121(1) and 351(3) of BNSS in Crime No.11 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.

1/4

2. The prosecution case is that there was a clash between the Villagers of Pudupattinam and Oyylaikuppam. While the de-facto complainant, who was serving in the Armed force, Chengalpattu Police Department attempted to pacify the situation the clash, the petitioners allegedly assaulted him. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent person and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It was further submitted that the petitioners are 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 petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that this a case of assault against a police official, who had taken treatment in a hospital for two days. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 2/4

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. Though the injured has been discharged, considering the allegations against the petitioners that they committed an assault on a police official, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed. 25.03.2026 mp To 1.The Inspector of Police, Law & Order, Kalpakkam Police Station, Chengalpattu District. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 3/4

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

mp Crl.OP.No.7499 of 2026 25.03.2026 4/4