Vikneshwar @ Appu Citizen, v. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27-06-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP No.17875 of 2025

1. Vikneshwar @ Appu Citizen,

2. Arun Kumar @ Arun julie Petitioners Vs.

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, H-5, New Washermanpet Police Station, Chennai. (Crime No.595 of 2025) Respondent PRAYER Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, pleased to grant anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest connected with crime No.595/2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, H-5, New Washermenpet Police Station, Chennai.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Dhilip K For Respondent(s):

M/s. R. Vinoth Raja Ga (crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioners / Accused 4 & 7, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 324(4), 125, 311 and 351(3) of BNS in Cr. No.595 of 2025, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 25.03.2025 at about 8.00 am, the defacto complainant was running his petty shop at AA Scheme Road, MPT Colony, New Washermenpet when the accused person came in a drunken state and consumed water bottles and snacks from the shop. When the complainant demanded payment, the accused persons abused him using filthy language. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that there are totally seven accused and the 1 st petitioner is arrayed as A4 and the 2 nd petitioner is arrayed as A7. He would submit that the first petitioner/A4 has been arrested by the respondent and the nd petitioner who is a habitual offender having fifteen previous cases pending

against him. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the nd petitioner.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

6.Considering the submissions of both sides and the overtact levelled against the 2 nd petitioner and the stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought for by the 2 nd petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed in respect of the 2 nd petitioner.

7.The Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed as infructuous in respect of the 1 st petitioner.

27-06-2025 gbi

To 1.State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, H-5, New Washermanpet Police Station, Chennai. (Crime No.595 of 2025) 2.The XV Metropolitan Magistrate Court George Town.

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.

gbi CRL OP No. 17875 of 27-06-2025