P.Anand v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN P.Anand ..Petitioner(s) Vs State by The Inspector of Police Kariyapattinam Police Station, Nagapattinam District.

(Crime No.55/2026) ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to enlarge the petitioner herein in Bail connection with the Crime No.55 of 2026, pending investigation on the file of the Respondent police and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.R.Naresh Kumar For Respondent(s):

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

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.04.2026 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 296(b) and 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, in the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, due to a property dispute, the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant's son, namely Ashok, causing him to sustain severe injuries. The victim was admitted to the hospital, and after undergoing treatment, he subsequently succumbed to his injuries and died. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and is not connected with the offences alleged in the complaint. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 11.04.2026; 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 occurrence took place on 11.04.2026, where the deceased was a differentlyabled, helpless person and none other than the biological brother of the petitioner, was brutally done to death over a property dispute.

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, the deceased was a vulnerable, differently-abled individual who was targetted and assaulted. Given the relationship between the parties, the background of a property dispute, and the nature of the assault upon a helpless person, this Court is of the firm view that it is not desirable to enlarge the petitioner on 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 District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Vedaranyam. 2.The Superintendent, District Prison, Nagapattinam. 3.The Inspector of Police, Kariyapattinam Police Station, Nagapattinam District.

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

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

Jeni 08-06-2026