Boopathi v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 19/03/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL Boopathi ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs The State of Tamil Nadu,, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Kulithalai Police Station, Karur District.

(Crime No. 117 of 2025).

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner :

Mr. K.Arunraj Advocate.

For Respondent :

Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No. 117 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner on 17.03.2025 under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 praying to grant bail.

1/4

2. The petitioner / accused No.1 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.03.2025, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 49, 109, 115(2) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.117 of 2025, on the file of the respondent-police.

3. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, on 02.03.2025 at about 8.30 pm., when the defacto complainant was proceeding in his Two Wheeler from Kuppachipatti to Irumpoothipatti, the petitioner herein and other accused persons intercepted the defacto complainant and attacked him with Aruval and also scolded him by using filthy language and assaulted him with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

4. Mr.K.Arunraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and his name has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner has been judicial custody since 03.03.2025. Accordingly, he prays to grant bail to this petitioner.

5. Per contra, Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-Police, submits that the petitioner has two previous cases, in which, one case is under Section 302 IPC. He further submits that 2/4

the defacto complainant and A5 are brothers and the specific overt act of the petitioner is that he has attacked the defacto complainant with Aruval and thereby, caused grievous injuries to them. He further submits that investigation of the case is pending and therefore, at this stage, if the petitioner is released on bail, he may abscond and cause threat to the defacto complainant and other witnesses. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this petition.

6. Heard both sides and perused the records.

7. Considering the overt act of the petitioner and also considering the antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that if the bail is granted to the petitioner, he may abscond and cause threat to the defacto complainant and his family members. Further, investigation of the case is not yet completed and hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 19/03/2025 / TRUE COPY / /04/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (CS-I/II/III/IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

3/4

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KULITHALAI POLICE STATION, KARUR DISTRICT.

2 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, SUB JAIL, KULITHALAI 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.5041 of 2025 Date :19/03/2025 AS/SAR/ (09/04/2025) 4P /4 C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4