Bharathkumar 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. Bharathkumar

2. Vijayakumar ..Petitioners Vs The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Perambur Police Station, Mayiladuthurai District.

[Crime No.253 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 their arrest in connection with Crime No.253 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioners:

Mr. U. Kathiravan For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS, in Crime No.253 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2.

This is a case arising out of a family dispute. The de facto complainant is the brother-in-law of the 1st petitioner and the son-in-law of the

2nd petitioner. Due to a matrimonial dispute between the daughter of the 2nd petitioner and the de facto complainant, a wordy quarrel arose between the parties, resulting in injuries to the de facto complainant. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that this is a case and counter. He further submits 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 that the defacto complainant sustained grievous injuries. She further submits that the injured got 8 stitches and discharged from the hospital on 03.06.2026. Hence, she vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 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.Considering the serious nature of the allegations and the weapon used, though the injured was discharged from the hospital, if the petitioners are released on anticipatory bail, it would be construed as encouraging the

commission of such offences. 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, Perambur Police Station, Mayiladuthurai District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

VEDA 09-06-2026