M.Arunpandiyan v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.25721 of 2025

1. M.Arun Pandiyan

2. G.Jagadeesan ... Petitioners Vs.

State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Ramanatham Police Station, Cuddalore District.

... Respondent (Crime No.183 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.183 of 2025 on the file of respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.D.Ilayaraja For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 25(1A) of Arms Act in 1/4

Crime No.183 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and the petitioners are close relatives. A family dispute had arisen between them for the past couple of months. On the date of occurrence, there was a wordy quarrel between them. At about 10.30p.m., when the defacto complainant's daughter was alone at home, the petitioners/accused, riding their vehicle near her residence, a shot the defacto complainant's compound wall with a country gun. Hence, the case.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and reported that the petitioner's earlier anticipatory bail petition was dismissed by this Court on 20.08.2025 in Crl.OP.No.23003 of 2025 on the ground that since the gun used for intimidation has not been recovered, there is always a threat to the defacto complainant. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

2/4

4. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the gravity of an offence committed by the petitioner and also taking note of the fact that there is no change of circumstances after the dismissal of the petitioner's earlier anticipatory bail petition, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 19.09.2025 Vv To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Thittagudi.

2. The Inspector of Police, Ramanatham Police Station, Cuddalore District.

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

3/4

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

Vv Crl.O.P.No.25721 of 2025 19.09.2025 4/4

5/4