K.Rajkumar v. The State Represented by the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

27.10.2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 296(b), 109(2), 103(1) and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.467 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that, due to previous enmity, while the deceased and the defacto complainant were travelling on a two-wheeler on the main road, the petitioner drove his car in a rash and negligent manner and hit them, causing the death of the deceased on the spot. It is further alleged that the petitioner also attacked them with an iron rod and abused them in filthy language. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and the son of the defacto complainant were partners in a real estate business and, due to disputes relating to sharing of property, an altercation arose, during which the occurrence is alleged to have taken place. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner has been in incarceration for the past 125 days and that the charge sheet has already been filed. Hence, it is contended that this is a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶4The said contention was strongly opposed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent, who submitted that there are about ten previous cases pending against the petitioner under the Prohibition Act and that, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it would adversely affect society at large. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the bail petition.

¶5The said contention raised by the learned Government Adovcate (Crl.Side) was reiterated by the learned counsel appearing for the intervenor.

¶6No doubt, the petitioner has been in incarceration for more than 125 days and the charge sheet has been filed and taken on file in S.C.No.57 of 2026. However, the fact remains that, according to the petitioner, there are seven previous cases against him, whereas according to the prosecution, there are about ten previous cases pending against him under the Prohibition Act. Considering the criminal antecedents attributed to the petitioner and the larger interest of society, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶7In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 02-03-2026 skr Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes C.KUMARAPPAN J. skr To

¶1The learned Judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam.

2.The Inspector of Police, Vellakoil Police Station, Tiruppur District.

¶3The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai. AND CRL MP NO. 3604 OF 2026 02-03-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-03-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN AND CRL MP NO. 3604 OF 2026 1. K.Rajkumar Petitioner(s) Vs The State Represented by The Inspector of Police Vellakoil Police Station, Tiruppur District. Crime No. 467/2025. Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in Crime No.467 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Shanmuga Velayutham, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Senthil For Respondent(s): For Intervenor(s): Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Mr.N.Manoharan