Sampath @ Sampathkumar v. The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.34514 of 2025 Sampath @ Sampathkumar ... Petitioner Vs.

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

... Respondent (Crime No.258 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 arrest in Crime No.258 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police station. For Petitioner : Mr.E.Sathiyaraj Elangovan For Intervenor : Mr.K.Kesavan For Respondent : Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sectios 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS (corresponding sections 1/4

294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act in Cr.No.258 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that due to irrigation dispute, the petitioner had picked quarrel with the defacto complainant and her husband and also attacked the defacto complainant by using iron rod and caused fracture in her leg, which led to the registration of the FIR. Hence, the present case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not having any bad antecedents and the offence was taken place due to the quarrel and hence prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the Intervener submitted that the defacto complainant herein is a lady, she had sustained fracture in her leg and she is still undergoing treatment. He further submitted that the petitioner had also filed another anticipatory bail petition in Crl.MP.No.3574 of 2025 seeking the same relief and the same is pending before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

injured is still undergoing treatment. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

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

7. Considering the fact the injured is still undergoing treatment and the petitioner had also filed another anticipatory bail petition before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai in Crl.MP.No.3574 of 2025 seeking the same relief, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 17.12.2025 Vv To

1. The District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thandrampattu, Thiruvannamalai District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Thanipadi Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

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

3/4

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

Vv K.RAJASEKAR , J.

Crl.O.P.No.34514 of 2025 17.12.2025 4/4

5/4