Shakila v. State Rep By, Inspector of Police

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 16655 and 16656 of 2026 CRL OP No. 16655 of 2026 Shakila ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep By, Inspector of Police F1, Gummidipoondi Police Station, Tiruvallur District-601 201. Crime No.105/2026 ..Respondent(s) CRL OP No. 16656 of 2026 Saroja ...Petitioner Vs State Rep By, Inspector of Police F1, Gummidipoondi Police Station, Tiruvallur District-601 201. Crime No.105/2026 ..Respondent(s) COMMON PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Connection with FIR NO.105/2026 on the file of respondent police and thus render justice. Page2 of 5 In both Crl.O.P's For Petitioner(s): S.. Shankar For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate(Crl.side) COMMON ORDER The petitioners apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b) and 118(1) of BNS, 2023 Act r/w Section 4 of TNPHW Act in Crime No. 105 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on 09.06.2026, when the defacto complainant along with her family members visited the accused person's residence, at that time, A1 abused them in a filthy language, criminally intimidated them and also assaulted the defacto complainant and other persons using wooden log. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case and that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the Petitioners. Page3 of 5

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that defacto complainant is the mother-in-law of A1. He further submits that out of 3 victims, one of the victim is still in the hospital. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

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

¶6From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), it is seen that out of three victims, one of the victim is still in the hospital. Hence, this Court is of the view that it is premature to consider granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 01-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order nr Page4 of 5 To

¶1Inspector of Police F1, Gummidipoondi Police Station, Tiruvallur District-601 201.

¶2The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶3The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Gummidipoondi. Page5 of 5

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. NR CRL OP No. 16655 and 16656 of 2026 01-07-2026