A.Jayakumar v. State Represented By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN and Crl.MP.No.6835 of 2026

1. A.JayaKumar S/o Ayyavu, No.5 /160/C1, JK Garden, Ellampilai Post, Sankari Talluk, Salem-637502.

2. K.A.Arunprasath S/o.Ayyavu, No.105/A2, Murugan Nagar West, Mottur, Idanganasalai, Sankari Taluk, Salem District.

3. C.Sudhakar S/o.Chinnadurai, No.1/5, Krishna Rettiyur, Thappakuttai, Salem - 637 502.

4. P.Sellakannu S/o.Palanisamy, No.1/420-5, Munsif Thottam, Naduvaneri, Sankari Taluk, Salem - 637 504.

5. T.Dhanasekar S/o.Thangaraj, Devangapuram, Ilampillai Post, Salem-636 502.

6. L.Viswanathan S/O.Lakshmanan, No.1-451, Thethigiripatti, Salem - 636 451.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. State represented by The Inspector of Police Magudanchavadi Police Station, Salem District.

..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 concerned in Crime No.84 of 2026, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Magudanchavadi Police Station, Salem District, on such terms and conditions and as this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.N.Vijaya Basker For Respondent(s):

MR.P.DHILEEPAN, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL SIDE) For Intervener:

Mr.Ali Hassan Khan

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 118(1), 329(4), 351(3) of BNS, 2023 r/w Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, in Crime No.84 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused, being neighbours of the defacto complainant, objected to the construction of a compound wall and, in order to stall the same, demolished the wall, abused the defacto complainant and

his family members in filthy language, assaulted them, and threatened them with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case and that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that in the alleged occurrence, that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there are five injured persons, out of which, three have been discharged from the hospital, while two are still undergoing treatment. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the above aspects and in view of the fact that two of the injured are still undergoing treatment, this Court is of the firm that it is premature to consider the anticipatory bail petition at this stage. Hence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 15-04-2026 DRL To 1.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

2.The Inspector of Police Magudanchavadi Police Station, Salem District.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

DRL and Crl.MP.No.6835 of 2026 15-04-2026