Velumani v. State Represented By Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Velumani ..Petitioner Vs State Represented by Inspector of Police, Sankari Police Station, Salem.

[Crime No.153 of 2026] ..Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner on Bail in the event of arrest in the Crime No.153 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police and pass such further or other orders.

For Petitioner:

Mr.G. Paramasivam For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 109(1) @ 191(2), 296(b), 103(1) of BNS of 2023 in Crime No. 153 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased after consuming alcohol in a Bar spat against other persons and in this connection, there was an altercation and according to the FIR, A1 to A6 assaulted the deceased and thereby deceased initially sustained grievous injury and was admitted in hospital on 10.04.2026 and further not responding to the treatment died on 23.04.2026. Thereafter, charge was altered from 109 BNS to 103 BNS.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that coaccused A7 and A8, who are the employers of the petitioner, were already granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 02.06.2026 in Crl.O.P. No. 12771 of 2026. Hence, on the grounds of parity, he prays for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. However, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police vehemently opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that a specific overt act is attributed to him, inasmuch as he assaulted the de facto complainant.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), the present petitioner cannot claim parity with co-accused A7 and A8, who were granted anticipatory bail. No overt acts were attributed to those accused, whereas a specific overt act has been alleged against the present petitioner. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 23-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order VEDA To 1.Inspector of Police, Sankari Police Station, Salem.

2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

VEDA 23-06-2026