Karthik v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Karthik

2. Manikandan ..Petitioners Vs The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Perumanallur Police Station, Tiruppur.

[Crime No. 212 of 2026] ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.212 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner:

Mr. J.Franklin For Respondent:

Ms.R.S.Indira Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS, in Crime No.212 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that on 26.05.2026, at about 09:45 p.m., while the de facto complainant was driving his vehicle along Vavipalayam Road towards his house, the 1st accused (Selvaraj) continuously honked his

horn, overtook the de facto complainant's vehicle, and assaulted him. Thereafter, he allegedly contacted the petitioners over the phone, who subsequently arrived at the scene and assaulted the de facto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are no way connected to this case and have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. 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 submits both the petitioners have a previous case against them. She further submits that the injured is still in the hospital. Hence, she vehemently 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 also perused the records available. 6.From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), it is seen that the petitioners have a previous case against them, which demonstrates that they have misused the liberty granted to them by the courts.

Further, taking into consideration that the injured is still in the hospital, it is premature to consider granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 09-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order VEDA To 1.The Inspector of Police, Perumanallur Police Station, Tiruppur.

2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

VEDA 09-06-2026