Karthikeyan Rangaswamy v. The State Of Tamil Nadu, Represented By, Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Karthikeyan Rangaswamy S/o.Rangaswamy, No- 1/443-A, Avinashi Rd.

Chiniyam palayam, Coimbatore South, Tamil Nadu 641062 ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Of Tamil Nadu, Represented By, Inspector Of Police Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore South Tamil Nadu 641062.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused in the event of their arrest by the respondent in E-2 Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore Cr.No. 132/2026 on the file of the respondent pending investigation and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

Mr. B.Kalaiarasan For Respondent(s):

MR.P.DHILEEPAN, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL SIDE)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 351(3) and 324(2) of BNS, Act 2023 in Crime No.132 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that, due to a property, there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, who is his father. During the course of the quarrel, the petitioner is alleged to have abused the defacto complainant, assaulted him with wooden logs, threatened him with dire consequences and also caused damaged to the family property. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that there are two previous cases pending against the petitioner. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

6. From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) it is seen that the petitioner has two previous cases of similar in nature. In the present case, the allegation is that the petitioner assaulted his own father and caused damage to the family property. Taking into consideration the antecedents of the petitioner and the nature of the allegations, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 17-04-2026 DRL To 1.The Inspector Of Police Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore South Tamil Nadu 641062.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

DRL 17-04-2026