Saravanan v. The State Represented By , The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Saravanan ... Petitioner/A3 Vs The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Chithode Police Station, Salem.
(Crime No.138 of 2025) ...Respondent/Complainant Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Crime No.138 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Padmanabhan For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
ORDER
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 19.03.2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 121(1) and 109(1) Page No.1 of 6
of BNS, 2023 in connection with Crime No.138 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused assaulted the de-facto complainant, Inspector of Police and one Yogaraju, Grade I PC, Chithode Police Station with weapon with an intention to cause death to them and also obstructed them from discharging their official duty as a Government Servant. Hence, the case. 3.The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner is said to have travelled along with one Sathish, Boopalan, Saravanan and Karthikeyan in a car bearing No.TN-85-C-9970 and the same was intercepted and enquired by the police. At that time, the petitioner along with others said to have escaped and one of them attacked the police party, thereby, they got injured and later the accused persons apprehended. 4.The further contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that earlier a case was registered by the respondent in Crime No.137 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109(1) and 103 of Page No.2 of 6
BNS, 2023, in which, one John is said to have done to death. When the respondent police conducted investigation, searched for the accused, the accused persons said to have attacked the police and caused injury. This case has been projected as though the petitioner attempted to flee and attacked the police.
5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent strongly opposed the petitioner's contention submitting that the petitioner is A2 in Crime No.137 of 2025. There is a specific overt act against the petitioner. The petitioner along with 9 others committed murder on 19.03.2025 at about 11.15 hours. The respondent police on getting information, visited the scene of occurrence, found one of the accused with bloodstain. On enquiry, he informed that the petitioner and others from the car fleeing from the scene of occurrence. Thereafter the respondent police chased and intercepted the petitioner, at that time the petitioner along with three others attacked the police. He further submitted that the petitioner knowingly committed grave offence of murder. Subsequently, when the police attempted to apprehend them, they attacked the police. Hence, strongly opposed for granting bail to the petitioner. Page No.3 of 6
6.Considering the submissions made on either side and on perusal of F.I.R., it is seen that the petitioner and other accused attacked the police personnels, who attempted to arrest the accused persons, who are involved in a murder case in Crime No.137 of 2024 and the offence is of serious in nature. Further, investigation in this case is also at the crucial stage. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to entertain this bail petition and the same is dismissed.
20.06.2025 rsi Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Internet: Yes/No Page No.4 of 6
To 1.The Inspector of Police, Chithode Police Station, Salem.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai - 600 104.
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Page No.5 of 6
rsi 20.06.2025 Page No.6 of 6