Abishek v. State Of Tamilnadu, Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Abishek ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Kundrathur Police Station, Kancheepuram District. (Cr.No.384 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S.,2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest concern in Crime No.384 of 2025 on the file of the Kundrathur Police Station, Kancheepuram District.

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

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, in Crime No.384 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

1/4

2.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he joined hands with two other accused, quarrelled with the defacto complainant, due to previous enmity, the petitioner's friends attacked the defacto complainant with wooden logs and iron rods, and thereby caused injuries to him. Hence, the present complaint has been registered.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not participated in the occurrence, he only attempted to stop the attack of the other accused, but, he has falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to produce solvent sureties, abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and also undertake to appear and to co-operate for the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent reiterated the case of the prosecution and submitted that the petitioner, along with the other accused, due to previous enmity, quarrelled with the defacto complainant and attacked him with iron rods and stones, causing injuries. The injured was admitted into the hospital and has since been discharged. It is further submitted that the petitioner has three previous cases pending against him involving serious offences and the investigation is going 2/4

on. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6.

Considering the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate, it appears that the petitioner, along with the other accused allegedly attacked the defacto complainant with iron rods and caused injuries. Though the injured person was discharged from the hospital, since the petitioner is a habitual offender having three previous serious cases pending and the investigation is still in progress, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage would hamper the investigation and may embolden him to indulge in similar activities. Hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 23.10.2025 klt To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Kundrathur Police Station, Kancheepuram District. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. 3/4

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

klt 23.10.2025 4/4