C.Manoj Tak v. The State, Rep By Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.26274 of 2025 C.Manoj Tak ... Petitioner Vs.

The State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, T-14 Pallikaranai Traffic Investigation Wing, Chennai.

... Respondent (Cr.No.583 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Cr.No.583 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Parthasarathi For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence under Section 281, 125(b), 106(1) of BNS Act @ 281, 105 R/w 196 of Motor Vehicle Act in Crime No.583 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail. 1/4

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he drove the two wheeler in rash and negligent manner in the public and hit on the defacto complainant and caused severe injuries on his head and subsequently died after two days and hence, the case was altered into Section 281, 105 of BNS Act r/w Section 196 of Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, the case has been registered.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the deceased in this case is pedestrian suddenly entered into the Pallikaranai road without taking caution which resulted in causing severe injuries on his head. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner has driven the vehicle in negligent manner and caused severe injuries and that too, in small lane with high speed, which resulted in the accident and further investigation revealed that he has not even insured the vehicle. Hence, he oppose to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), 2/4

the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner, and also the gravity of offence, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner for the purpose of investigation is necessary in this case. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 24.09.2025 ssi To 1.The Judicial Magistrate-II, Alandur.

2.The Inspector of Police, T-14 Pallikaranai Traffic Investigation Wing, Chennai.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. K.RAJASEKAR , J.

ssi 3/4

Crl.O.P.No.26274 of 2025 24.09.2025 4/4