Moorthi v. State, Rep. By, the Sub Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS, in Crime No.34 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. Page2 of 4

¶2The allegation against the petitioner is that the defacto complainant and the petitioner are brothers. On the date of the alleged occurrence, a wordy quarrel arose out of a land dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant during which, the petitioner is alleged to have assaulted the defacto complainant with a wooden log, thereby causing grievous injuries to him. Hence, the complaint.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this is the fourth anticipatory bail application. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the occurrence took place on 15.03.2026 and FIR was registered on 21.03.2026. He further submitted that the defacto complainant sustained grievous injuries, including a head injury with 8 stitches, and also suffered a fracture. He further submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Page3 of 4

¶5I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.

¶6From the submissions made by the learned Government advocate (Crl.Side) it is seen that the defacto complainant sustained grievous injuries and that the entire issue arose out of a land dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. Though it is stated that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. Considering the severity of the allegations and the nature of the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant, this Court is of the firm view that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it would give send wrong signal to the society. Hence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

¶7Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 21-04-2026 DRL To

1.The Sub Inspector of Police Moranam Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District. (Crime.No. 34 of 2026)

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o10067oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. DRL CRLoOPoNo.o10067oofo2026 21-04-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Moorthi S/o. Sadhasivam No.20, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Cheyyar ward, Vadapoondipattu, Kaganam, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District 604 410. ..Petitioner(s) Vs State, rep. by, The Sub Inspector of Police Moranam Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District. (Crime.No. 34 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 34 of 2026 on the file of Respondent Police and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.R.Appaswamee For Respondent(s): MR.P.DHILEEPAN, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL SIDE)