Muthamizh Selvan v. The State Represented By Its,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.Nos.25713 and 25715 of 2025 Muthamizh Selvan ... Petitioner (in Crl.OP.No25713 of 2025) Munusamy Geetha ... Petitioners (in Crl.OP.No25715 of 2025) Vs.

State rep.by its The Inspector of Police, B6. Mappedu Police Station, Thiruvallur.

... Respondent (in both Crl.OPs) COMMON PRAYER : Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioners/1st, 2nd and 3rd accused persons on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.190 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the B6. Mappedu Police Station, Thiruvallur .

For Petitioners : Mr.J.Janarthanan For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/4

COMMON ORDER The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.190 of 2025 , on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioners herein are alleged to have assaulted the defacto complainant for removing them from their WhatsApp Group named '' Namavom Namani Anjom". Hence, the present complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that they have not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioners earlier bail petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 26.08.2025 in Crl.OP.No.23632 of 2025. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners 5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 2/4

6. On an earlier occasion, these petitioners have filed anticipatory bail petitions in Crl.O.P.No.23632 of 2025. This Court vide order dated 26.08.2025, dismissed the said application on the ground that the respondent police should secure the persons involved and conduct a proper investigation and if the anticipatory bail is granted, there is every possibility of screening of evidence. Being the observations made by this Court in the earlier anticipatory bail petition, there is no change of circumstances and hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions for anticipatory bail are dismissed.

19.09.2025 Vv To

1. The Judicial Magistrate-II, Thiruvallur.

2. The Inspector of Police, B6. Mappedu Police Station, Thiruvallur.

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

3/4

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

Vv Crl.O.P.No25713 and 25715 of 2025 19.09.2025 4/4