Harish v. State Rep. By Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.28884 of 2025 Harish ... Petitioner Vs.

State Rep.by Inspector of Police, T-3, Pallavaram Police Station, Chengalpattu District.

.... Respondent.

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest concerned in Cr.No.479 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Ms.Girija Iyappan For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 351(3) of BNS 2023 in 1/5

Cr.No.479 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that this petitioner joining hands with his friends, called out the defacto complainant, who is also a college student studying in the same institution, chased him, and attacked him indiscriminately with a knife, severing his little finger. It is further alleged that the other accused also attacked the defacto complainant with knives on his head, ear, and various parts of the body. The petitioner specifically is alleged to have used a knife to inflict injuries on the chest and knee of the defacto complainant. Hence, the present case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a student and that he is in no way connected with the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity. Hence, he prayed that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and reported that there 2/5

are totally four accused involved in this case, and the petitioner herein has been ranked as A4. It is further reported that A1 and A2 have already been arrested. The petitioner is alleged to have used a weapon and caused severe injuries to the defacto complainant. Though it is stated that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, considering the specific overt act attributed to the petitioner in attacking the defacto complainant indiscriminately, if he is enlarged on anticipatory bail, there is a likelihood of his indulging in similar activities. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity and nature of the offence alleged against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 24.10.2025 Vv 3/5

To

1. The District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram.

2.The Inspector of Police, T-3, Pallavaram Police Station, Chengalpattu District.

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

4/5

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

Vv Crl.O.P.No.28884 of 2025 24.10.2025 5/5