S Naveen Sanjay v. State Represented By The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP Nos. 9822 and 9823 of 2026 Crl.OP.No.9822 of 2026 S Naveen Sanjay ..Petitioner Vs State Represented by The Inspector of Police R-10 MGR Nagar Police Station, Chennai.
(Crime No. unknown /2026) ..Respondent Crl OP No. 9823 of 2026 Saravanan ..Petitioner Vs State Represented by The Inspector of Police, R-10 MGR Nagar Police Station, Chennai.
(Crime No.97 /2026) ..Respondent Prayer in Crl.OP.No.9822 of 2026: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of BNSS to enlarge anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. unknown of 2026, under Sections 191(2), 191(3),126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS on the file of the respondent Police Station. Prayer in Crl.OP.No.9823 of 2026: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of BNSS to To enlarge anticipatory bail in the event of his
arrest in Crime No.97 of 2026, under Sections 191(2),191(3),126(2),296(b),115(2),118(2),351(3) of BNS on the file of the respondent Police Station and thus render justice. For Petitioner in both Crl OPs:
Mr.N. Govindarajan For Respondent:
in both Crl OPs Mr.P.Dhileepan Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side) COMMON ORDER The petitioners apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS in Crime No.Unknown of 2026 and Crime No.97 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the occurrence took place on 29.03.2026, and there was a gang rivalry between two groups, due to which the petitioners along with other persons attacked the de facto complainant in which de facto complainant sustained grievous injuries. Hence, this case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were innocent and that they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that they are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and they are ready to co-operate for investigation. Hence,
he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that there were 15 accused in this case and the petitioners are arrayed as A4 and A5. The occurrence took place on 29.03.2026. Based on the occurrence, the de facto complainant sustained head injury and was constrained to be in hospital for a period of six days. He further submitted that investigation is still pending Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and upon the serious injury sustained by the de facto complainant, and also upon the ground that the occurrence emerged out of gang rivalry, this Court is of the view that it is not appropriate to consider the bail application of the petitioners at this stage. Hence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. 22-04-2026 SHL
To:
1. The XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.
2. The Inspector of Police R-10 MGR Nagar Police Station, Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
SHL CRL OP Nos. 9822 and 22-04-2026