A.Arumugam v. The State Rep by the Inspector of Police

Order The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 191(2), 296(b) and 105 of BNS, in Crime No.146 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that owing to a prior land dispute, a quarrel arose between the families of Viswanathan and Arumugam. It is alleged that Arumugam instigated his relatives to attack the rival group by using a car. Pursuant thereto, his son-in-law, Thangadurai, along with others, allegedly drove the car into the rival group and hit several persons, including the husband of the defacto complainant, Velu, who succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He also submitted that the petitioners are no way connected with the alleged offence. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Page3 of 5

¶4The learned Government Counsel (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and he submitted that there are totally five accused in this case, in which the petitioners are arrayed as A1 and A5. He further submitted that the offence is grave in nature and the investigation is pending. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶5I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶6From the submissions made by either side, and considering the seriousness of the allegation and the way in which the occurrence took place, and the stage of investigation, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have not made out a case for the grant of anticipatory bail. Merely because certain co-accused have been enlarged on regular bail, the petitioners cannot claim parity as a matter of right, considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Hence this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Page4 of 5

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 15-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order AH To

1.The Inspector of Police, Kadampuliyur Police Station, Cuddalore District.

2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o14126oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPANoJ. AH CRLoOPoNO.o13838oOFo2026 15-06-2026 oooooo1/2 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 13838 of 2026 1. A.Arumugam, S/o.Ayyakannu, No.596, Mariyamman Kovil Street, Mettukuppam, Nadukuppam, Cuddalore District. 2. A Kavimani, D/o. Arumugam, W/o. Dhangadurai, No.11/191, Road Street, Nadiyapattu, Palakkollai, Cuddalore District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Kadampuliyur Police Station, Cuddalore District. Crime No. 146 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, praying to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioners in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before any court in connection with the case in Crime No.146 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. Page2 of 5 For Petitioner(s): Mr.Harish, For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Palanivel, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)