Vijayaragavan v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By Its, Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CRL OP NO. 29764 of 2025 Vijayaragavan Petitioner Vs The State rep. by The Inspector of Police Mandharakuppam Police Station Cuddalore District Crime No. 96 of 2025.
Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the Crime No. 96 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.John For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side) ----
O R D E R
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 329(4), 74, 79, 118(2), 133, 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of TNPWH Act, in Crime 1/6
No. 96 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is the husband of the de-facto complainant. Due to misunderstanding between them, the de-facto complainant is living with her parental house. On 08.06.2025 at about 7.30 a.m., the petitioner & his mother went to her house, quarrelled with her mother and sister and they severely attacked them using filthy language and caused severe fractured injuries and harassed the de-facto complainant. Hence the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to furnish sufficient solvent sureties for his release. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the 2/6
petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submits that due to misunderstanding, the de-facto complainant is living at her parental home, and the petitioner had caused severe fractured injuries and harassed the de-facto complainant. Therefore, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned counsels and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the fact that the petitioner caused severe injuries including fractures to the women and this Court already dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner herein in Crl.O.P.No. 3/6
28405 of 2025, dated 17.10.2025 and there is no change in circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 03.11.2025 MSM To 1.The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Neyveli. 2.The Inspector of Police Mandharakuppam Police Station Cuddalore District Crime No. 96 of 2025.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
4/6
K.RAJASEKAR , J.
MSM 5/6
Crl.O.P.No. 29764 of 2025 03.11.2025 6/6