Harish v. The State Represented By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 07.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1.Harish 2.Paramasivam 3.Samikannu ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8567 of 2026

1. Santhosh

2. Tamilselvi

3. Sivgami

4. Muthaiyan

5. Panneerselvam ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.8555 of 2026 Vs.

State Represented by, The State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Eriyur Police Station, Dharmapuri District.

Crime No.56 of 2026 ... Respondent in both Ops 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 his arrest by the respondent police in the above Cr.No.56 of 2026 on the file of the respondent.

1/5

For Petitioners : M/s.M.Jaisingh For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 329, 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3), 324(4) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 4 of TNHW Act in Crime No.56 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to civil dispute, petitioners and the defacto complainant attacked each other, due to which, defacto complainant and others sustained injuries. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is a counter case registered against the defacto complainant. He would further submit that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court and hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

2/5

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would reiterate the prosecution case and submitted that, charges against the petitioners were attempt to murder and the petitioners used knives to attacked the defacto complainant.

5. Taking into consideration the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner and if the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail, it will be a wrong signal to the Society as if this Court is dealing such type of offence very lightly and also there is a possibility of recurring similar type of offences in the near future. Hence, this Court is of the view that, petitioners does not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the petitioners do not deserve anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. 07.04.2026 sma To 3/5

1.The Inspector of Police, Eriyur Police Station, Dharmapuri District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

4/5

C.KUMARAPPAN.J.

sma 07.04.2026 5/5