Ravi v. The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1.Ravi 2.Sugumaran ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep by The Inspector of Police T-11, Thiruninravur Police Station, Thiruvallur District, Crime No.121 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to enlarge the petitioners/accused herein on Bail in Crime No.121 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.M.Gnanasekar For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody for alleged offences punishable under Sections 189(4), 125, and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, read with Section 25(1A) of the Arms

Act, 1959, and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, in the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, acting on secret information, the respondent police learned that one Arul, an accused in the murder case of BSP Tamil Nadu State President Mr.Armstrong, who was out on bail, was regularly travelling in his white Triber car to comply with his bail conditions at the Court near Thirunindravur. The petitioners, along with other accused persons, followed the said Arul in their cars while holding deadly weapons, including knives, and possessed weapons in a manner threatening to the public. Hence, the accused were arrested at the scene.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and are not connected with the offences alleged in the complaint. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been in incarceration for a considerable period; hence, the counsel prayed for the grant of bail.

4. The said contention was strongly opposed by the learned Government Counsel (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent, who submitted that the petitioners were arrested along with serious arms while attempting a retaliation attack. He further submitted that there is one previous case pending against the first petitioner and five previous cases pending against the second petitioner.

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

6. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, and the submissions made by the learned Government Counsel which disclose that this incident constitutes a severe retaliation attempt. The petitioners were arrested in possession of serious, deadly arms. If enlarged in bail, the same would cause grave repercussions in society. In view of the nature and gravity of the offence, the dangerous potential of a retaliatory strike, and the past criminal antecedents against both petitioners, and the overall threat to public peace, this Court is not inclined to grant bail at this stage.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 08-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Jeni

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate-II, Thiruvallur.

2.The Superintendent, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai. 3.The Inspector of Police, T-11, Thiruninravur Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

Jeni 08-06-2026