Mohammed Afreed v. The State Rep by

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

17.05.2026 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 109(1), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, in Crime No.170 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page2 of 4

¶2The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity between the petitioner and the defacto complainant's family, the petitioner, along with other co-accused persons, abused the defacto complainant's family, uttered filthy words, and launched a violent physical assault using hands and a knife. 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 out of prior enmity. He further submits that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since

17.05.2026 and is ready to 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 submits that there are a total of three accused in this case, and the present petitioner is ranked as Accused No.1 (A1). He states that while the petitioner was arrested, the other co-accused persons are currently absconding. He reiterates that due to deep-rooted previous enmity, the petitioner along with others abused the family and attacked the victim with a knife. He further contends that if the petitioner is released at this stage, he will shield the absconding accused and hamper the pending investigation. Page3 of 4

¶5Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court takes a serious view of the matter. The petitioner is the accused (A1) who allegedly led an armed assault with a knife against the defacto complainant's family due to prior enmity. Furthermore, the investigation is still pending, and the other co-accused persons are still absconding. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail at this juncture, there is a strong probability of him tampering with evidence, threatening the defacto complainant's family, or assisting the absconding accused in evading justice. Therefore, considering the gravity of the offence and the stage of the investigation, 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, Tindivanam, Villupuram.

2.The Inspector of Police, Marakkanam Police Station, Villupuram District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. CRLoOPoNo.o14889oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. Jeni CRLoOPoNo.o14889oofo2026 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 Mohammed Afreed ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Marakkanam Police Station, Villupuram District. ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to enlarged the petitioner on bail in Crime No.170 of 2026 on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Jaisingh For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)