D.Rudreshwaran v. The State Represented by

O R D E R The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

15.05.2026 for the alleged offence under Section 296(b), 191(2), 191(3), 103(1) and 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 in Crime No.74 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page1 of 4

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on 12.04.2026, the de facto complainant received a message over phone that there was a wordy quarrel between his sons and other unknown persons. It is alleged that unknown persons assaulted the de facto complainant's sons with knife and weapons. Due to which, the son of de facto complainant died. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are about 10 accused in this case. The petitioner herein has been incarcerated since

13.04.2026. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent Police reiterated the prosecution's case and, upon instructions, submitted that this petitioner was arrested based upon the further statement given by the deceased's father.

¶5At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the order passed in Crl.OP.No.12073 of 2026 in Page2 of 4 respect of one Mahesh who has been arrayed as A9 and one Sundaresan in Crl.OP.No.13067 of 2026 who has been arrayed as A4 were enlarged on bail on

13.05.2026 and 14.05.2026 respectively. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), Sabarinathan and Arun Kumar are not named accused.

¶6I have considered the submissions made on both sides and also perused the records available.

¶7Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, amd taking note of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side); this Court is of the firm view that the benefit of parity given to the other co-accused cannot be extended to this petitioner, as the petitioner is a named accused in the FIR. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 01-06-2026 SHL To

1.The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Arcot.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kalavai Police Station, Ranipet District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. Page3 of 4 CRLoOPoNo.o13565oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. SHL CRLoOPoNo.o13565oofo2026 01-06-2026 Page4oofo4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No.13565 of 2026 D. Rudreshwaran ..Petitioner Vs The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Kalavai Police Station, Ranipet District. (Crime No. 74 of 2026) ..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.74 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner: Mr. B. Mohan For Respondent: Mr. N. Palanivel, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)