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

ORDER The petitioners apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Section 123 of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.986 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail. Page2 of 4

¶2The case of the prosecution is that one Meganathan who is the childhood friend of de facto complainant, has injected "Tydol" medicine in the hands of the de facto complainant. Due to which, an infection developed in his hands and subsequently admitted in hospital. It was informed to him in the hospital that the said Tydol tablet pose a serious threat to human life. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that they 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.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that the petitioners possessed 240 numbers of Tidol tablets. He further submitted that petitioners are arrayed as A7 and A8, and that A7 has one previous case pending against him, while A8 has five previous cases pending against him. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Page3 of 4

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

¶6Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, it is seen that by the previous conduct of the petitioners, this Court is able to visualise the character of these petitioners, which is not in their favour. Apart from this, the petitioners were in possession of a controlled substance. In such a case, if anticipatory bail is granted, then it would run counter to the interest of the society. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 09-06-2026 SHL/NSL To:

¶1The Judicial Magistrate, Madhavaram

¶2The Inspector of Police M-3, Puzhal Police Station, Chennai.

¶3The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras CRLoOPoNo.o14472oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPANoJ. SHL CRLoOPoNo.o14472oofo2026 09-06-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1. Vijay 2. Bharath ..Petitioners Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police M-3, Puzhal Police Station, Chennai, Crime No.986/2025 ..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 483 of BNSS to enlarge the Petitioners on Anticipatory bail in the event of arrest made by the respondent police in Crime Number 986 of 2025 on the file of respondents police. For Petitioner: Ms.A.Ayesha Parveen For Respondent: Ms.R.S.Indira, Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)