Ragothaman v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)

(va) of the Schedule Caste and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Page2 of 4 Act, 1989 in Crime No.106 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, the petitioners (who are the complainant's neighbors) allegedly gave poisoned food to the complainant's dogs to kill them. As a result, the dogs died. While the complainant and her husband were talking about what happened, the petitioners interrupted and confronted them. During the argument, the petitioners insulted the complainant and her husband by using their caste name. It is also alleged that the petitioners assaulted them and threatened to kill them.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that no such occurrence has taken place as alleged by the prosecution.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that there are specific allegation attracting the provision of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 and the bar under Section 18 of the Act is clearly applicable. Hence the petition for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. Page3 of 4

¶5This Court, on perusal of the FIR and the material available on records, finds that there are specific allegations against the petitioners, including the use of caste based abusive words. Prima facie, the provision of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 are attracted. In such circumstances, in view of the bar under Section 18 of the Act, this petition seeking anticipatory bail is not maintainable.

¶6Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed as not maintainable. 23-03-2026 NSL To

¶1The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Villupuram, Tamil Nadu - 605 602.

¶2The Inspector of Police, Thiruvennainallur Police Station, Villupuram.

¶3The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o7174oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. NSL CRLoOPoNo.o7174oofo2026 23-03-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1. Ragothaman 2. Divyalakshmi ..Petitioners Vs 1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Villupuram, Tamil Nadu - 605 602. 2. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thiruvennainallur Police Station, Villupuram. (Cr.No.106/2026) 3. Chithra ..Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused No. 1 and 2 on Anticipatory Bail in the event of their arrest by the second respondent/Complainant in Crime No.106 of 2026 on the file the second Respondent Police. For Petitioner: Mr.P.A.Sai Govindaraja For Respondent: Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)