Santhoshkumar v. State By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 14.07.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Santhoshkumar ... Petitioner -VsState by:

The Inspector of Police, Gurubarapalli Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

(Crime No.150 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.150 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.M.Jayachandran For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl. Side) *****

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable u/s 191(2), 191(3), 329(3), Page No.1 of 4

296(b), 115(2), 109 of BNS Act and subsequently, altered to Section 191(2), 191(3), 329(3), 296(b), 115(2), 103 of BNS Act, in Crime No.150 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that allegedly there was a pathway dispute between the families of defacto complainant and A3/Jayamani. Due to that, defacto complainant's son, namely Prabu had morphed the unwanted photo of A3 and the same was shared in social media. Hence, on 07.05.2025 at about 3.00 p.m., when the same was questioned by A1 to A3 along with petitioner and other accused, the son of the defacto complainant was attacked with knife by throwing the knife to A3/Ragavendiran, due to which, the said Ragavendiran's left hand was cut injury. Thereafter, A1 was attacked with hands on the face of the deceased and the petitioner and other accused jointly assaulted with hands and legs. Due to that, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and admitted in the Government Hospital and counter case has been registered by the respondent police against deceased. Thereafter, he died in the hospital. Hence, the complaint.

Page No.2 of 4

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and due to previous enmity, he has been falsely implicated in this case. Further, he submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any stringent conditions as imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required in this case. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the records.

6. Since the petitioner had committed very serious offence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Page No.3 of 4

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

sp

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 14.07.2025 sp To 1.The Inspector of Police, Gurubarapalli Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Page No.4 of 4