J.Stephen v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police

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

06.05.2026 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 109, 115(2), 126(2), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, in Crime No.109 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, the petitioner, along with other co-accused, wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant, and uttered filthy, abusive words and launched a violent assault on him using a knife and their hands. The defacto complainant sustained multiple injuries all over his body and was admitted to the hospital for medical treatment, from which he was subsequently discharged. 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 due to prior enmity. He further submits that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since

06.05.2026 and is ready to 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, stating that this is a case of pre-planned assault using a dangerous weapon like a knife. He submits that the victim sustained multiple injuries across his body and that the investigation is still pending. He argues that releasing the petitioner at this juncture will disturb public peace and lead to potential retaliation or witness intimidation. Page3 of 4

¶5Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court takes a serious view of the matter. The allegations reveal a coordinated attack involving deadly weapons resulting in multiple injuries all over the victim's body. Though the defacto complainant has been discharged from the hospital, the active role and weapon attribution to the petitioner cannot be overlooked. The investigation is still pending, and the previous enmity between the parties indicates a high risk of further law and order issues if the petitioner is released. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, 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-II, Tambaram.

2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

3.The Inspector of Police, T-13, Chitlapakkam Police Station, Chennai.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. CRLoOPoNo.o14877oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. Jeni CRLoOPoNo.o14877oofo2026 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 J.Stephen ..Petitioner(s) Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep by The Inspector of Police T-13, Chitlapakkam Police Station, Chennai. ..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.109 of 2026 on the file of the respondent. For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Shivakumar For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)