Yasvanth Babu Alias Sabarish v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.08.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

1. Yasvanth Babu

2. Mani

3. Rajkumari 4.Kesava Priya ... Petitioners Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, E5 Sholavaram Police Station Tiruvallur District.

Crime No. 540 of 2025 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 540 of 2025 on the file of respondent police.

For Petitioner :

M/s.N.Silambarasan For Respondent :

Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

1/5

The petitioners, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS r/w 4 of TNHW Act, in Crime No. 540 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that due to family dispute, there was a wordy quarrel arose between the petitioners and the defacto complainant in which the petitioners alleged to have attacked the defacto complainant due to which, he sustained injuries. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He also submits that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to furnish sufficient solvent sureties for their release. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that in this case, totally four accused and the defacto complainant went for filling of water. At that time, A1 attempted to attack the defacto complainant with knife and A2 attacked him with wooden log. He also states that defacto complainant had not hospitalised. However, he opposed to 2/5

grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard the learned counsels and perused the materials available on record.

6. The family dispute between the defacto complainant and the petitioners, while the defacto complainant was collecting water from the public place, led to an assault, wherein the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant using wooden log and a slipper.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations and submissions made by learned counsels on either side, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 25.08.2025 nr To 3/5

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruvallur.

2. The Inspector of Police, E5 Sholavaram Police Station Tiruvallur District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

nr 4/5

25.08.2025 5/5