Venkatesan @ Venkatesh v. The State Rep, By Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Venkatesan @ Venkatesh S/o Devan, No. 1/52, Kanavaiputhur, Lokkur, Denishpettai, Kadayampatti Taluk, Salem District.

2. Vijay @ Vijai S/o Ayyanar, No.1/42, Lokkur, Danishpet, Kanavaiputhur, Salem District.

3. Arun S/o Ayyanar, No.1/42, Lokkur, Danishpet, Kanavaiputhur, Salem District.

4. Ayyanar @ Iyyanar S/o. Krishan, No.1/42, Lokkur, Danishpct, Kanavaiputhur, Salem District.

5. Megenthiran @ Mathiyalagan S/o. Krishnan, No.1/21, Lokkur, Danishpet.

Kanavaiputhur, Salem District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep, by Inspector of Police, Deevattipatty Police Station, Salem District.

Crime No.89/2026

..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest a case in crime No. 89 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent and thus render Justice.

For Petitioner(s):

M/s.C.Deepak Kumar For Respondent(s):

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

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 189(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.89 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, due to previous enmity with regard to land dispute, a wordy quarrel arose between the petitioners and the defacto complainant. During the course of the said quarrel, the petitioners allegedly attacked the defacto complainant with wooden log and caused severe injuries to him. Hence, a case has been registered against the petitioners.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case and that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further

submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that the defacto complainant had sustained severe injuries and had undergone treatment for six days. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

6. From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate, it is is seen that the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant are serious in nature and that he was admitted in the hospital for six days. Considering the same and also taking into account that the investigation is at preliminary stage, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 26-03-2026 DRL To

1. The State Rep, by Inspector of Police, Deevattipatty Police Station, Salem District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

DRL 26-03-2026