Rajavel v. The State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1.Rajavel S/o. Krishnamoorthi, 4/4, North Street, Ulunthandar Kovil, Ulundurpet, Kallakurichi District, Ulundurpet 606 107.

2.Gunasekaran S/o. Subramaniyan, 56,North Street, Ulunthandar Kovil, Ulundurpet, Kallakurichi District.

Ulundurpet - 606 107.

..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Ulundurpet Police Stat ion, Kallakurichi District.

Cr.No.151 of 2026.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest by the respondent police with reference to the Cr.No.151 of 2026 u/s.296(b),115(2),132 of The Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 on the file of the Respondent Police. For Petitioner(s):

M Himavanth For Respondent(s):

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

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2) & 132 of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.151 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that, due to a wordy quarrel, they abused and assaulted the defacto complainant, caused injuries to him, and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant, and that they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court and are willing to cooperate with the investigation. He also submitted that the issue arose when the petitioners questioned the defacto complainant, who is a lineman, regarding the power cut. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The said contention was strongly refuted by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), who submitted that the petitioners are habitual offenders. It was further submitted that the first petitioner has seven previous

cases and the second petitioner has four previous cases to their credit. On the date of occurrence, the petitioners allegedly questioned the defacto complainant and assaulted him, causing grievous injuries.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent.

6. From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), it is seen that the petitioners interfered in the discharge of duties of a public servant. Considering the serious allegations against the petitioners, and the fact that they have criminal antecedents, which clearly demonstrates that the petitioners have misused the liberty granted by this Court in earlier cases and have subverted the course of justice, they do not deserve anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 27-03-2026 MPA To

1. The Inspector of Police, Ulundurpet Police Stat ion, Kallakurichi District.

Cr.No.151 of 2026.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

MPA 27-03-2026