Prabhavathi v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 17.01.2025 PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.POORNIMA 1.Prabhavathi 2.Santhosh Kumar 3.Prakash ... Petitioners / Accused Nos.1, 2 & 4 Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Inspector of Police, Batlagundu Police Station, Dindigul.

(Crime No.6 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners :

Mr.M.Sankar, Advocate For Respondent :

Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS Act. PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 6 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police 1/3

for the alleged offences under Section 296(b), 115(2), 315 of BNS 2023, in Crime No.6 of 2025 dated 09.01.2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant and the accused No.1 to 3 are family members. A1 is the wife of the de-facto complainant, A2 & A3 are sons of the de-facto complainant and A4 is their relative. On 09.01.2025, the petitioners herein are said to have used filthy language on the de-facto complainant and attacked him with the iron rod and shovel and the de-facto complainant sustained injuries. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the de-facto complainant and the petitioners herein are family members. The alleged case against the petitioners are purely wordy quarrel between the family members. They have not involved in any serious offences and thus, prays to grant anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police submits that the accused joined together and attacked the de-facto complainant with iron rod and shovel, resulting in injuries. The de-facto complainant is now taking treatment and has not been discharged from the hospital.

5. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the material records of the case.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and 2/3

considering the nature of allegations made in this case and considering the fact that the de-facto complainant has not been discharged from the hospital, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. sd/- 17/01/2025 / TRUE COPY / 17/01/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.I /II /III /IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

NSR/LM To 1.The Inspector of Police, Batlagundu Police Station, Dindigul.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.957 of 2025 Date :17/01/2025 ED/ /SAR- (17/01/2025) 3P / 3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 3/3