Jeeva v. State Rep By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Jeeva ... Petitioner Vs.

The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, T-10 Manimangalam Police Station.

Crime No.333 of 2025 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.333 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Raj For Respondent :

Mr.S.Udayakumar, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 1/4

O R D E R

The petitioner herein apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 109(1) and 351(3) of BNS Act, in Crime No.333 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a prior enmity between the de facto complainant and the accused persons, A1 to A7. On 22.08.2025, A5 called the de facto complainant by phone, scolded him, and asked him to come to PSB Mahal, Padappai. When the de facto complainant, along with his friend, went to the said place, a quarrel ensued, and the petitioner, along with the other accused, attacked the de facto complainant with deadly weapons, causing injuries. Hence, the complaint.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/A2 submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that one of the co-accused was granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.25853 of 2025 dated 19.09.2025. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

2/4

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner also attacked the de facto complainant with a knife. He further submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and that the petitioner has four previous cases. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

5. Considering the gravity of the offence, the specific overt act attributed to the petitioner in attacking the deceased, and noting the petitioner's previous criminal antecedents, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 09.10.2025 cda 3/4

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

cda To 1.The Inspector of Police, T-10 Manimangalam Police Station.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

09.10.2025 4/4