Ramesh v. The State Rep.By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Ramesh

2. Arivukarasu

3. Senthil @ Senthilkumar ... Petitioners Vs.

The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Thiyagadurugam Police Station, Kallakurichi District.

(Crime No.72 of 2026) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.72 of 2026, pending investigation on the file of the respondent Police.

For Petitioners : Mr.Paramasivam Krishnamurthy For Respondent : Mr. P. Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 296(B), 115(2), 118(1) and 324(4) of BNS, 2023 r/w Section 4 of TNPWH Act in Crime No.72 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

1/4

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners abused the de facto complainant in filthy language and assaulted him and his wife with a wooden log, thereby causing grievous injuries. It is further alleged that the petitioners also caused damage to a car and a two-wheeler to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-. Hence, the case.

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

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the case of the prosecution and vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. From the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, it is seen that the occurrence took place on 01.03.2026 and that there are three accused involved in this case. It is further seen that there exists a civil dispute pending between the parties and, in continuation thereof, the 2/4

petitioners are alleged to have assaulted the de facto complainant using wooden logs. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that, pursuant to the said assault, the de facto complainant was hospitalized for a period of 17 days. It is also alleged that the petitioners caused damage to the de facto complainant's car and two-wheeler, thereby indicated the gravity of the allegations. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant and the seriousness of the allegations, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioners do not deserve the relief of anticipatory bail.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 27.04.2026 kv To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kallakurichi.

2. The Inspector of Police, Thiyagadurugam Police Station, Kallakurichi District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 3/4

C.KUMARAPPAN.J.

kv 27.04.2026 4/4