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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Velayutham No.72-2, Madara Alli, Yerrappanaikkanur, Pochampalli, Krishnagiri-635203 ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Mathur Police Station, Krishnagri District.

Crime.No.59 OF 2026 ..Respondent(s) 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 arrest in Crime.No. 59 OF 2026 on 17.02.2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Mathur Police Station and Krishnagiri District and pass such further or other order as this Honble Court and may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render Justice. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Saravana Pandiyan For Respondent(s):

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

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(2) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.59 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that due to land dispute, there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, during which, the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant with wooden log and caused injuries to him. Hence, a case has been registered against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case, and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the alleged incident arose only due to a wordy quarrel between the parties, which has been exaggerated and falsely projected. He also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and is willing to fully cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that the occurrence took place on 16.02.2026. He further submitted that, in furtherance of the occurrence, the petitioner along with five other accused persons assaulted the defacto complainant, as a result of which the defacto complainant sustained severe injuries and was hospitalized for nearly one month, i.e., until 19.03.2026. Though he has now been discharged from the hospital, the petitioner has one previous case pending against him. Hence, he strongly opposed the grant of 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 (Crl.Side), it is seen that the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant are severe injuries, and the fact that the petitioner has one previous case pending against him. Taking into consideration these aspects, this Court is of the view that the allegation that the petitioner, along with other accused, caused grievous injuries to the defacto complainant, and the contention of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) that custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the truth cannot be faulted.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 30-03-2026 DRL To

1. The Inspector of Police Mathur Police Station, Krishnagri District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

DRL 30-03-2026