Silambarasan v. The State Represented By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17-10-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CRL OP NO.28398 of 2025 Silambarasan Petitioner(s) Vs The State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Gengavalli Police Station, Salem District.

Crime No.216 of 2025.

Respondent(s) 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 arrest pending investigation in Crime No.216 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.M.Vinoth For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl.side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 @ under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 351(3) and 324(4)(5) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.216 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he went to the barbar shop and objected to the defacto complainant, who was running the barbar shop with a knife, stating that he should not cut or shave to the persons belonging to the scheduled caste. Further, it is alleged that the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant with a knife, causing injuries on his chest, and poured petrol on his head. However, due to the intervention of other persons present, the petitioner fled from the scene. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. 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 had caused serious injuries to the defacto complainant and the motive behind the occurrence is also grave in nature as the petitioner objected to the defacto complainant cutting or shaving persons belonging to the depressed class.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the motive behind the occurrence, and the fact that he caused injuries to the defacto complainant and also poured petrol on his head, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 17-10-2025 drl K.RAJASEKAR, J.,

drl To 1.The Inspector of Police, Gengavalli Police Station, Salem District.

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

CRL OP NO.28398 of 2025 17.10.2025