Gopalakrishnan v. The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Crl.OP.No.9182 of 2026 Gopalakrishnan ... Petitioner(s) Vs.

The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Veerapandi Police Station, Tiruppur.

... Respondent(s) Crime No.83 of 2026 For Petitioner(s) : Mr.P.Thinesh For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Crl.OP.No.9194 of 2026

1. Vengateshwaran

2. Harish ... Petitioner(s) Vs.

The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Veerapandi Police Station, Tiruppur.

... Respondent(s) Crime No.83 of 2026 1/6

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.P.Thinesh For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Crl.OP.No.9252 of 2026 Subramani ... Petitioner(s) Vs.

The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Veerapandi Police Station, Tiruppur.

... Respondent(s) Crime No.83 of 2026 Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.83 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Deepan Uday For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.02.2026 and 26.02.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.83 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

2/6

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant had married a woman from a different locality, and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a child. In order to show the child to their parents, the defacto complainant, along with his wife, came to the village, where, due to previous enmity, the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant with a knife, thereby causing grievous injuries. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioners have been in custody since 24.02.2026 and are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of bail, reiterated the prosecution case and, on instructions, submitted that due to the elopement of the defacto complainant with the said woman, the petitioners developed vengeance, and in furtherance of the same, the occurrence had taken place. He further submitted that the injured was discharged from the hospital after 30 days of treatment and that the investigation is still pending. It was also submitted that, if the 3/6

petitioners are enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of threat to the life of the defacto complainant.

5. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the fact that the investigation is still pending, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 15.04.2026 skr 4/6

To

1. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruppur.

2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruppur.

3. The Superintendent, District Jail, Tiruppur.

4. The Inspector of Police, Veerapandi Police Station, Tiruppur.

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras 5/6

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

skr 15.04.2026 6/6