Rajesh v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 21.08.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN

1. Rajesh

2. Vengatesh @ Vengatesan

3. Prabhakaran

4. Prakash

5. Vinoth @ Vinothkumar

6. Viji @ Vijay

7. Prathap ... Petitioners/ Accused Vs.

The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Gengavalli Police Station, Salem.

(Crime No.140 of 2025).

... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.140 of 2025 on the file of respondent Police.

For Petitioners : Mr. R. Siranjeevi For Respondent : Mr. S. Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ****** 1/4

O R D E R

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 191(3), 296(b), 115(1), 118(2), 109(2) and 351(2) of BNS Act r/w Section 3(1) of PPDL Act, 1992 in Crime No.140 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. According to the prosecution, on 04.06.2025 morning, there was a dispute between the relatives of the defacto complainant and the accused and under the guise of compromising the dispute, these petitioners along with other accused gathered with weapon, abused the defacto complainant's husband with filthy language, brutally attacked him with knife and wooden log, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries and they have also caused damages to the property. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner is innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case, on account of previous enmity. He further submitted that there is a case in counter registered in Crime No.139 of 2025 against the relatives of defacto complainant and the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that may 2/4

be imposed by this Court and sought for anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police while opposing the anticipatory bail to the petitioners, reiterated the prosecution case and stated that there are totally eight accused in this case and A3 was arrested. He further submitted that the petitioners herein are notorious and having bad antecedents and if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, there is life danger to the defacto complainant and his husband.

5. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that A5, A6 and A8 have no bad antecedents and A3 was arrested and released on bail.

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

7. Considering the said facts and nature of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 3/4

Dr. G. JAYACHANDRAN, J., stn

8. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 21.08.2025 stn To

1. The Inspector of Police, Gengavalli Police Station, Salem. (Crime No.140 of 2025).

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

21.08.2025 4/4