Trinath Das v. State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25.11.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR 1.Trinath Das 2.Prabitra Jena 3.Sangram Jena ... Petitioners -VsState Rep by, The Inspector of Police, M-1, Madhavaram Police Station, Chennai.

(Crime No.663 of 2025) ... Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS Act, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.663 of 2025 pending on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioners :

Mr.R.Muthukumar For Respondent :

Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 30.09.2025, for the alleged offence punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS, in Crime No.663 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 1/4

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they had a prior quarrel with the deceased, and on the basis of the said motive, they went to the room of the deceased, developed a quarrel, and assaulted him. It is alleged that the first petitioner attacked the deceased with an iron rod, while the other petitioners assaulted him with stones, thereby causing his death. Hence, the complaint was lodged and the petitioners were arrested.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in judicial custody from 30.09.2025 and that the petitioners are not having any previous case pending against them. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioners.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there are four accused in this case, and the petitioners are arrayed as A1, A3 and A2 respectively. He further submitted that the first petitioner attacked the deceased with an iron rod, while the other petitioners assaulted him with stones. He also submitted that the petitioners hail from the State of Orissa and the deceased hailed from the State of Bihar. It was further submitted that the fourth person is a juvenile and that the case is still under investigation, and if the petitioners are released on bail, they are likely to abscond and tamper with the investigation. Hence, he opposed for the grant of bail to the petitioners. 2/4

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record including the First Information Report.

6. This Court has perused the FIR and other connected records. It is seen that the petitioners, along with the other accused, had brutally attacked the deceased.

7. Considering the above facts, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, and the fact that the petitioners are in judicial custody since 30.09.2025 and investigation is pending, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 25.11.2025 drl To

1. The Inspector of Police, M-1, Madhavaram Police Station, Chennai.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

3/4

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

drl 25.11.2025 4/4