Selvakumar @ Selvakumar Immanuvel v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 18/06/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAI and CRL MP(MD). No.7151 of 2025 Selvakumar @ Selvakumar Immanuel, S/o.Gnanaraj ... Petitioner/A1 Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Eral Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.258 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.R.Mathava Selvam, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For Intervenor : Mr.B.Jeyakumar, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS 1/5
PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.258 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A1, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) and 49 of BNS, 2023 r/w. Section 3 of TNPPDL Act in Crime No.258 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that while the de-facto complainant was riding his two-wheeler, the petitioner and other accused persons intercepted him, pushed him off his bike, and brutally attacked him using a sickle, thereby causing injuries. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person, and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is a practicing advocate in Coimbatore District. He further contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case merely because he is a family friend of the other accused. Hence, he seeks 2/5
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the petitioner and the de-facto complainant reside in the same area, and due to previous enmity, the petitioner, along with other accused persons, made an attempt to murder the defacto complainant. However, the complainant managed to prevent the attack and sustained severe injuries, which required plastic surgery. He further submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential in this case, and that an identification parade is also necessary. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the petitioner has been arrayed as A1 in this case. A2 was arrested and subsequently released on bail on 05.06.2025 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi in Cr.M.P.No.1996 of 2025. The injured person sustained a head injury and was discharged from the hospital on 22.05.2025. He further submitted that the weapon has not yet been recovered, and the case is still under investigation. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 3/5
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking note of the fact that the case is still under investigation, and that the weapon involved has not yet been recovered, and also considering the strong objection raised by the learned counsel for the intervenor and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), and also considering the specific overt act against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed. sd/- 18/06/2025 / TRUE COPY / /06/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
MKN TO 1 THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, THOOTHUKUDI.
2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERAL POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.
4/5
3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.9202 of 2025 Date :18/06/2025 NM/03.07.2025/ 5P/4C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 5/5