Vimal v. The State Rep. by Inspector of Police

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

04.02.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 109(1), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.57 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page2 of 5

¶2The case of the prosecution is that, while the defacto complainant was with a friend consuming alcohol, a dispute arose when a piece of food accidentally fell on the petitioner and other accused persons. This escalated into a violent altercation and fueled by previous enmity. During the incident, the accused persons allegedly assaulted the defacto complainant with a wooden log, causing grievous injury. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been in continuous custody since 04.02.2026. It is further contended that the injured person has already been discharged from the hospital. The learned counsel emphasizes that the petitioner is willing to abide by any stringent conditions imposed by this Court and is ready to cooperate fully with the investigation. On these grounds, the petitioner prays for the grant of bail.

¶4The said contention was strongly opposed by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent, who submitted that  the petitioner, along with others, launched a brutal attack causing grievous injuries. The learned Government Advocate would point out that the petitioner is a habitual offender with seven previous cases of a similar nature pending against him. It is further contended that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is a every probability of him tampering with witnesses and endangering Page3 of 5 the de facto complainant, given the history of enmity.

¶5I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

¶6Having considered the submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) and while taking into account that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, this Court nevertheless cannot overlook the petitioner's extensive criminal antecedents. Since the petitioner is involved in seven previous cases of a similar nature, which indicates a persistent disregard for the law, this Court is of the view that it would not be appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶7Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 27-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Jeni Page4 of 5 To

¶1The Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur.

¶2The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai.

¶3The Inspector of Police, Manimangalam Police Station, Tambaram District.

¶4The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. CRLoOPoNo.o7852oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. Jeni CRLoOPoNo.o7852oofo2026 27-03-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Vimal ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. by Inspector of Police Manimangalam Police Station Tambaram District Crime No.57/2026. ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.57 of 2026 on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Kavikannan For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side)