Mahenderan@Kannan v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

07.03.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections 126(2), 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 118(1), 351(3) and 103(1) of BNS in Crime No.75 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail. Page2 of 4

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the deceased and the petitioners are Sri Lankan repatriots residing in a refugee camp in Thiruvallur District since 2003. A dispute arose between them over government house allotments, as the deceased was the camp's Association President. On 07.03.2026, at about 07:30 a.m., following an altercation, the petitioners waylaid the deceased, abused him, and assaulted him with an iron rod. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to them. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there were seven accused in this case and that the petitioners are arrayed as A2 to A7. He further submitted that A1 had been detained under Act 14 of 1982. According to the petitioners, they were remanded to judicial custody on 07.03.2026. He also submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioners.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent-police strongly opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners on the ground that there existed previous enmity between A1 and the deceased and that the first petitioner, namely A2, had earlier defeated the deceased in a local election. He further submitted that even after the occurrence, there was a serious law and order problem during the receipt of the deceased's body. He further Page3 of 4 submitted that if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, it would cause a fear psychosis among the witnesses and therefore, there is every possibility of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶5Though the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) fairly submitted that the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is yet to be filed, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations against the petitioners and the seriousness of the issues, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), this Court is of the firm view that if the petitioners are enlarged on bail at this stage, it would definitely cause prejudice to the witnesses who have to depose before the Court. Hence, under such peculiar circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶6Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 02-06-2026 VKR To

1.The Inspector of Police F-2 Sipcot Police Station, Gummidipoondi.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o11649oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. VKR CRLoOPoNo.o11649oofo2026 02-06-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1. Mahenderan @ Kannan 2. Deepak 3. Pushpajothi 4. Ashaya @ Nisha 5. Akash Prasanna 6. Dharshini @ Priya ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police F-2 Sipcot Police Station, Gummidipoondi. (Crime No. 75/2026) ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail pending investigation in Crime No. 75 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s): Mr. K.Arunprasad For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)