Dhanapal v. State Rep.By, The Sub Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.25984 of 2025 Dhanapal ... Petitioner Vs.

State Rep by The Sub Inspector of Police, Attaiyampatti Police Station, ... Respondent (Crime No.290 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.290 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police pending investigation.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Siranjeevi For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

1/5

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b) and 109 of BNS and Section 4 of TNPHW Act in Crime No.290 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is the husband of the defacto complainant. On an earlier occasion, the defacto complainant had lodged a complaint against the petitioner alleging harassment. Based on that complaint, the petitioner was arrested and later released on bail. After being released on bail, he allegedly went to the defacto complainant's residence again, quarrelled with her, assaulted her with an aruval, and caused injuries. Furthermore, he also allegedly attacked his son and inflicted severe injuries on him.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any of the offences alleged by the prosecution. It was further submitted that, due to a family dispute between the parties, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed that 2/5

anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution's case and submitted that the injured persons have been discharged from the hospital. However, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the fact that the injured have been discharged from the hospital, and the petitioner's bad antecedents, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 22.09.2025 Vv To

1. The Additional Mahila Court,

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, 3/5

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

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

Vv 4/5

Crl.O.P.No.25984 of 2025 22.09.2025 5/5

6/5