Balasubramani v. The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Balasubramani S/o.Arusamy, Residing at No.58, Kaliyappa Gounden Pudur, Thoppampatti, Tiruppur District.

Pin Code 638 657.

2. Banumathi W/o.Balasubramani, Both are Residing at No.58, Kaliyappa Gounden Pudur, Thoppampatti, Tiruppur District.

Pin Code 638 657.

..Petitioner(s) Vs The Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police Station, Tiruppur District.

In Crime No.86 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 86 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police Station, Tiruppur District and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.T.Shanmugarajeswaran For Respondent(s):

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

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 329(3) and 351(3) of BNS Act, in Crime No.86 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that due to land dispute, the petitioners picked up quarrel with the defacto complainant and assaulted him with stick and sickle and thereby caused injury to the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are husband and wife and that the FIR was registered on 25.02.2026. He further submitted that the defacto complainant is a close relative of the petitioners. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that the first petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant with a stick and the second petitioner assaulted with a sickle, thereby causing grievous

injuries. He further submitted that the defacto complainant underwent treatment for more than 11 days and if the petitioner is enlarged on bail it would send a wrong information to the society. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6. While looking at the facts of the case, an earlier anticipatory bail petition was dismissed on 13.03.2026, and even with the present application, this Court could not find any change in circumstances. Further, this Court is of the firm view that it is not a desirable case to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 09-04-2026 DRL To

1. The Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police Station, Tiruppur District.

In Crime No.86 of 2026.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

DRL 09-04-2026