Santhosh v. State Rep.By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 27.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Santhosh ... Petitioner/A1 in Crl.O.P.No.10402 of 2026 Pandiyan @ Pandian ... Petitioner/A2 in Crl.O.P.No.10562 of 2026 Vs. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Oomberabad Police Station, Tirupattur District. Crime No.77 of 2026 ... Respondent in both Crl.O.Ps' PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.77 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.A.Sanjay For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) COMMON O R D E R The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.10402 of 2026, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 23.03.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 351(3) of BNS Act, 2023, altered to Sections 109(1), 296(b) and 351(3) of BNS Act, 2023 [corresponding Sections 294(b), 506 and 307 of IPC] in Crime No.77 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.10562 of 2026, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.04.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 351(3) of BNS Act, 2023, altered to Sections 109(1), 296(b) and 351(3) of BNS Act, 2023 [corresponding Sections 294(b), 506(ii) and 307 of IPC] in Crime No.77 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶3The allegations against the petitioners is that on 09.03.2026 at about

6.00 p.m., the petitioners/A1 and A2, who are father and son, came near the house of the de facto complainant, abused her in filthy language, and attempted to assault her with a knife. It is further alleged that A1 had, on an earlier occasion, brutally attacked the de facto complainant with a knife. Hence, the case.

¶4The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioners.

¶5The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police strongly opposed the bail application and submitted that due to a money dispute, A1, the father of A2, had, at an earlier point of time, assaulted the de facto complainant and caused as many as 23 stab injuries, for which she was admitted to the hospital and survived after treatment. He further submitted that after her discharge from the hospital, the present occurrence took place.

¶6Considering the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and the materials available on record, it is seen that the de facto complainant had sustained grievous injuries in the earlier occurrence. In such circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, it may embolden them to indulge in similar acts. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

¶7Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stand dismissed.

27.04.2026 cda To

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Ambur.

2.The Inspector of Police, Oomberabad Police Station, Tirupattur District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.