Sridharan v. State Represented By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

1. Sridharan S/o Panneerselvam, 777, Pudhumanai Street, Karumbur Village 607108 Cuddalore District Petitioner(s) Vs

1. State represented by The Inspector of Police, Pudupettai Police Station, Cuddalore District . Crime No. 382/2025.

Respondent(s) PRAYER To enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest pending investigation in Crime No. 382 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police Station. For Petitioner(s):

Rahamath Ali For Respondent(s):

M/s.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 118(1) of BNS r/w.4

of TNPHW Act in Crime No.382 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner came to the house of the defacto complainant and threatened her with dire consequences and also abused her by filthy language. Hence, she went out to lodge a complaint to the wife of the petitioner. At the time, the petitioner waylaid her, attacked her, pushed her down, and also obstructed the registration of the FIR.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that there are no bad antecedents against the petitioner and the injured sustained only simple injuries. Therefore, he prays for grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner harassed and attacked the defacto complainant two days continuously. She further submitted that the petitioner is having three previous cases of similar nature. Hence opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the fact that the petitioner is habitual offender and

attacked the defacto complainant two days continuously, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

02-01-2026 Mpa Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To 1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, Pudupettai Police Station, Cuddalore District . Crime No. 382/2025.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR J.

mpa CRL OP No. 34946 of 02-01-2026