Bharath @ Kari Bharath v. The State Rep By, the Inspector of Police

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

24.03.2026 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 309(4), 311, 109(1), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, in Crime No.463 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page2 of 4

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with other co-accused, went to the defacto complainant's iron shop and demanded money. When the defacto complainant refused, the accused persons uttered filthy, abusive words. They then attempted to attack him with a knife and forcibly robbed a sum of Rs.1,000/- from his pocket at knife point. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. He states that a false case has been foisted against him. He further submits that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 24.03.2026 and undertakes that the petitioner will strictly abide by any stringent conditions imposed by this Court.

¶4The learned Government Counsel (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police vehemently opposes the grant of bail. He reiterates the case of the prosecution, highlighting that the offence was committed at knife point in a public place. He further submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender with 6 previous cases of similar nature pending against him, and therefore, strongly objects to his release.

¶5Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court takes a serious view of the allegations involving an armed robbery at knife point inside Page3 of 4 a commercial shop. Further, this Court cannot overlook the petitioner's criminal antecedents, as he has 6 previous cases registered against him. The past conduct of the petitioner indicates a habit to commit similar offences, and his release at this stage would pose a threat to public peace and safety. Therefore, considering the gravity of the offence and his criminal history, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner

¶6Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 12-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Jeni To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No-II, Chengelpet.

2.The Superintendent, Puzhal Prison, Chennai.

3.The Inspector of Police, T-9, Maraimalai Nagar Police Station, Maraimalai Nagar, Chengalpet District.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. CRLoOPoNo.o14573oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. Jeni CRLoOPoNo.o14573oofo2026 12-06-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Bharath @ Kari Bharath ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep by, Inspector of Police T-9, Maraimalai Nagar Police Station, Maraimalai Nagar, Chengalpet District. ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.463/2025 dated 10.10.2025 on the file of the respondent police with stringent condition or pass any other orders as this Court deems fit and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.K.Yukanth For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)