Gokul v. The State Rep By, the Inspector of Police

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

16.04.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 109(1) and 351(3) of BNS in Crime No.98 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page2 of 4

¶2The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, the petitioner, along with the other accused, picked a quarrel with the de facto complainant, assaulted him a knife and kicked him and attempted to kill him. Hence the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the occurrence took place on 08.04.2026, the First Information Report was registered on

09.04.2026 and subsequently, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 16.04.2026. It is the specific submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the overt act attributed to the petitioner is that he kicked the de facto complainant and the major overt act are attributed only to A1 to A5, who allegedly assaulted the de fact complainant with a knife. He also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶4At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) strongly opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has seven previous cases of a similar nature. Apart from that, it is the contention of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) that the injured was hospitalized from 08.04.2026 to 19.05.2026, having sustained severe injuries. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it would jeopardize the prosecution case. Page3 of 4

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

¶6While looking into the factual positions of the case, it is evident that the petitioner has been involved in seven previous cases, which clearly demonstrates that he is likely to subvert justice if enlarged on bail. Even in the present case, the injured person was hospitalized for a period of more than one month which clearly indicates the seriousness of the offence. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility that the prosecution case will be jeopardized. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this juncture.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of. 02-06-2026 VKR To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem.

2.The Inspector of Police Kannankurichi Police Station, Salem District.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o13343oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. VKR CRLoOPoNo.o13343oofo2026 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 Gokul ..Petitioner Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Kannankurichi Police Station, Salem District. (Crime No.98 of 2026) ..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.98 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner: Mr.B.Vasudevan For Respondent: Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)