Manikandan v. The State Rep.By Inspeector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 16.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.25374 of 2025 Manikandan ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by The Inspector of Police, F-5. Choolaimedu Police Station, Chennai.

... Respondent (Cr.No.538 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.538 of 2025 on the file of the respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Pandian For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.08.2025 for the alleged offence under Section 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 75, 76, 309(4), 351(3) of BNS in Crime No.538 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

1/4

2. The case of the prosecution is that when the defacto complainant was talking with his girl friend in front of her house, the petitioner along with other accused came there and picked up unnecessary quarrel with them and assaulted them with helmet and wooden stick and caused head injury. Further, the accused have snatched gold chain from the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.

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

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the the petitioner herein arrayed as A3 and the co-accused were arrayed as A1 and A2, they were still in custody. He further submitted that the petitioner/A3, Auto Driver by profession and the stolen property was recovered. However, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner. 2/4

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

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner and previous bad antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 16.09.2025 Vv To

1. XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

2. The Inspector of Police, F-5. Choolaimedu Police Station, Chennai.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3/4

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

Vv Crl.O.P.No.25374 of 2025 16.09.2025 4/4