Kali v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.29006 of 2025 Kali ... Petitioner Vs.

The State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Chengam Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

... Respondent (Crime No.306 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the Crime No.306 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jayaprakash For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 126(2), 296(b), 132, 121(1) and 351(3) of BNS Act 2023, in Crime No. 306 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.

1/4

2. This is the second application filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in attacking the Forest Guard while the said Forest Guard was on duty and was taking custody of one of the accused involved in a forest offence. It is further alleged that the petitioner attempted to rescue the said accused. Hence, the case.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent; that he has been falsely implicated in this case; the petitioner has no bad antecedents and in any case, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and sought anticipatory bail. 4.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and on instructions submitted that the injured person has been discharged from the hospital. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 2/4

5. I have also gone through the FIR, it reveals that the petitioner not only trespassed into the forest, cut down trees, and involved in transporting, but also involved in attacking the forest officials joining with two other accused. The de-facto complainant was rescued by other officials. Considering the manner in which the occurrence had taken place and the specific overt-act attributed against this petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 25.10.2025 gbi To 1.The Inspector of Police, Chengam Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

3/4

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

gbi Crl.O.P.No.29006 of 2025 25.10.2025 4/4