Pounkumar v. State Rep By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 14.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Pounkumar ... Petitioners Vs.

State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Veraiyur Police Station Thiruvannamalai District (Crime No . 113 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 113 of 2025 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Veraiyur Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District For Petitioner : Mr.T.Shanmugam For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS, Act in Crime No. 113 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. Page No.1 of 4

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused attacked the defacto complainant and his brother's son with wooden log and also abused them in a filthy language. Hence, the case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that defacto complainant is a watchman and the petitioner/A1 had frequent dispute with the defacto complainant. He also submitted that A2, who is a friend of A1, assaulted the defacto complainant's brother's son and A1 assaulted with wooden log due to which, the defacto complainant sustained injuries. He further submits that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. He also submits that petitioner is an history sheeter and three previous cases were pending against the petitioner out of which, one got acquitted and two cases registered under Section 307 Page No.2 of 4

of IPC are pending. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) and also considering the fact that three previous cases were pending against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 14.07.2025 NR To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thiruvannamalai.

2. The Inspector of Police, Veraiyur Police Station Thiruvannamalai District

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Page No.3 of 4

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN , J.

NR 14.07.2025 Page No.4 of 4