Kesavan @ Ramesh v. State Rep.By,

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, in Crime No.63 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on 14.03.2023 at about 06.30 p.m., the husband of the defacto complainant's due to electrocution while driving the tractor belonging to the first accused under whom he was employed. Hence the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first accused is the owner of the land in which he had commenced water melon cultivation. It appears that the electric fencing was erected by the first accused solely with the intention of protecting the crops from wild animals. Unfortunately, the driver of the first accused is stated to have died due to electrocution while present at the farm. The petitioner herein is neither the owner of the said land nor aware of the installation of the electric fencing allegedly put up by the 1st accused. The petitioner has been arrayed as an accused merely because he is the brother of the first accused and not otherwise. The petitioner is an innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by Page3 of 5 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 petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and he vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶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, considering the nature of allegations and death of one innocent person due to the careless attitude of the petitioner, this Court is of the firm view that it is not appropriate to enlarge the petitioner at this stage. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 15-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order AH Page4 of 5 To

1.The Inspector of Police, Arambakkam Police Station, Gummidipoondi – Taluk, Thiruvallur District.

2.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Gummidipoondi.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o14539oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. AH CRLoOPoNo.o14539oofo2026 15-06-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Kesavan @ Ramesh S/o.Rathinam, No.175, Muthalamman Koil Street, Medhipalayam Village, Elavur Post, Gummudipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur District-601201. ..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Arambakkam Police Station, Gummidipoondi taluk, Thiruvallur District. Cr.No.63 of 2026. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police in connection with the case in Cr.No.63 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Gopi For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Palanivel, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) Page2 of 5