Aravind v. State of Tamilnadu Represented by

ORDER The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, in Crime No.69 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. Page1 of 4

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on the day of the alleged occurrence, the victim received a phone call from one Suresh Kumar, requesting his presence at a cluster company's premises regarding a dispute. Upon his arrival, a verbal altercation erupted between the victim and the accused persons. Later that night, the accused persons allegedly intercepted the victim and launched an attack using a wooden log. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are in no way connected to this case and have been falsely implicated. He further submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police, while reiterating the prosecution's case, strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. He submitted that the alleged occurrence took place on 25.02.2026 following a dispute at a company. He further contended that, driven by this enmity, the petitioners and other accused attacked the victim with a wooden log, causing a laceration wound over a vital part of the body, which necessitated hospitalization for ten days. He further highlighted that the petitioners (A1 and A2) are habitual offenders, having 5 and 10 previous cases respectively. He argued that if the petitioners are released on anticipatory bail, Page2 of 4 there is a high likelihood of them absconding or tampering with evidence, thereby hindering the progress of the investigation.

¶5Considering the nature and gravity of the offences, particularly the allegation that the petitioners used a weapon to cause injuries to a vital part of the body resulting in prolonged hospitalization, and taking into account the criminal antecedents of the petitioners, the specific overt acts attributed to them, and the need for custodial interrogation to prevent any threat to witnesses, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation is necessary for an effective investigation. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail at this stage.

¶6Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 09-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Jeni To

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi.

2.The Inspector of Police, Perumallur Police Station, Tiruppur City.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. Page3 of 4 CRLoOPoNo.o8898oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. Jeni CRLoOPoNo.o8898oofo2026 09-04-2026 Page4oofo4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1.K.Aravind 2.M.Yuvaraj ..Petitioner(s) Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by The Inspector of Police, Perumallur Police Station, Tiruppur City. (Cr.No.69/2026) ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to enlarge on anticipatory bail in the event of the petitioners arrest by the respondent Police Perumallur Police Station, Tiruppur City Police Station (Crime No.69 of 2026) in the interest of justice and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Gopinath For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Criminal Side)