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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 07.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.30416 of 2025 Lalithkumar ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep by The Inspector of Police, Puduchatram Police Station, Namakkal District.

... Respondent (Crime No.307 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, in Crime No.307 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under 1/4

Sections 296(b), 115(2), 324(2), 118(1), 351(2) of BNS and Section 4 of TNPHW Act in Cr.No.307 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is a neighbour of the defacto complainant and had demanded her to marry him. Since she refused to marry him, he allegedly attacked her indiscriminately using an iron rod and also dashed her head against the wall, resulting in severe injuries. She was rescued by her family members and immediately admitted to the hospital, after which the present complaint was lodged. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, and therefore prayed for grant of bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the 2/4

respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that, though the injured has been discharged from the hospital, the petitioner had caused severe injuries to the defacto complainant. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have also gone through the FIR, which reveals that the petitioner not only attacked the defacto complainant indiscriminately, but also damaged her mobile phone, dashed her head against the wall, and damaged her jewels. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he may indulge in similar activities. Hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail at this stage.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 3/4

07.11.2025 Vv To

1. The Additional Mahila Court, Namakkal.

2. The Inspector of Police, Puduchatram Police Station, Namakkal District.

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

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

Vv 4/4

Crl.O.P.No.30416 of 2025 07.11.2025 5/4