Manivannan v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Manivannan

2. Akash ..Petitioners Vs State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Maduravoyal Police Station, Chennai District. Crime No.416/2026.

..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.416 of 2026 by the respondent police.

For Petitioners:

Mr.P.Muthuamizh Selvakumar For Respondent:

Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.05.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 118(1), 109(1), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.416 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, the petitioners along with other accused person abused the defacto complainant in filthy language, assaulted with knife. The defacto complainant sustained injuries. Hence the case was registered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that there was an occurrence between two groups and the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that A1 and A2/petitoners were remanded on 22.05.2026. The learned counsel would also submit that A3 and A4 have already been enlarged on bail by the jurisdictional Court and therefore the petitioners are also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that though the co-accused have been enlarged on bail, A1 and A2/petitioners have got six previous cases. It is further submitted that the investigation is still pending.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6. This Court is of the view that though the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks parity with A3 and A4, the criminal antecedents of the petitioners cannot be ignored. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), both the petitioners have six previous cases to their credit. Considering the pendency of investigation and the criminal antecedents of the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 23-06-2026 NSL To

1. The Inspector of Police, Maduravoyal Police Station, Chennai District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

NSL 23-06-2026