Lakshmi v. State Represented By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 26.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.26606 of 2025 1.Lakshmi 2.Thilagam ... Petitioners Vs.

1.State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram.

2.Inspector of Police, G2 Police Station, Uthiramerur, Kancheepuram District.

(Cr.No.238 of 2025)

3. Kumar ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest in Cr.No.238 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.V.Shanmuganathan For Respondents : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Section 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS r/w 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended by Act 27 of 2018 in 1/4

Crime No.238 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners are ranked as A2 and A3. On 15.09.2025 at about 11.30 a.m., while the defacto complainant was involved in brick kiln work in the land belongs to one Palani/A2 at that time, A1 stacking hay in the field belonging to him very nearer to the brick kiln. Since the same was objected by the defacto complainant, A1 abused the defacto complainant by calling his caste name and further abused that the land owner belongs to their caste and, he alone is eligible to object for dumping the strays. Thereafter, on the same day around 6 p.m.

, the defacto complainant talking with another person near Kuttakarai, once again A2/Arunachalam brought A2/Palani came there along with his wives, who are the petitioners herein have quarrelled with the defacto complainant and attacked him with jagged Palmyra leaf stalk on his head and face and the petitioners herein also abused him and A4/Thilagam spit the face of the defacto complainant and A3/Lakshmi also kicked him and after that, they all joined together and abused the defacto complainant by calling his caste name. Hence, the present complaint has been lodged.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no 2/4

allegation of abusing the defacto complainant by calling his caste name or any other allegation attracting SC & ST Act made out against the petitioners. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. I have carefully considered the submissions made on both sides and also perused the FIR.

5. On perusal of FIR, it it reveals several offences including 3(1)(r), 3(1) (s) & 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act and the overt act against the petitioners is that the petitioners quarreled with the defacto complainant and first petitioner/A4 split on his face and other petitioner/A3 also attacked him and thereafter, both of them abused the defacto complainant by calling his caste name, and the alleged attack was also made since the injured is from Scheduled Caste, this Court is of the view that the present petition is not maintainable.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 26.09.2025 ssi K.RAJASEKAR , J.

ssi 3/4

To:

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram.

2.The Inspector of Police, G2 Police Station, Uthiramerur, Kancheepuram District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

Crl.O.P.No.26606 of 2025 26.09.2025 4/4