Arunkumar v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioner who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under section 126, 296(b), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS,2023 in crime No.80 of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail. Page2 of 4

¶2According to the prosecution, the defacto complainant is only a witness to the occurrence. It is submitted that one Senthil Kumar and the petitioner were involved in an altercation at a tea shop, and when the defacto complainant intervened to pacify them, the petitioner allegedly attacked him with a knife. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 16.02.2026. The defacto complainant was admitted in the hospital and, after undergoing treatment for nearly one month, was discharged. The injuries sustained by him are stated to be serious in nature, including a fracture of his right knee. Hence the case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is 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 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) would vehemently opposed the application and submitted that the defacto complainant had no prior connection with the petitioner. However, when an altercation arose between the petitioner and another person, the defacto complainant intervened only to pacify them. At that time, the petitioner allegedly assaulted the defacto complainant with a knife. The defacto complainant sustained serious injuries and was Page3 of 4 admitted in the hospital, where he underwent treatment for nearly one month.

¶5This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side). The defacto complainant appears to be an independent person who intervened to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and another individual. The allegation against the petitioner is that he attacked the defacto complainant with a knife, resulting in serious injuries, including a fracture of the right knee. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant and the manner in which the occurrence is alleged to have taken place, this Court is of the considered view that granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage would not be appropriate. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶6Hence, the petition stands dismissed. 10-07-2026 JRS Page4 of 4

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. JRS To

1.The Inspector of Police, Ambattur Estate Police Station, Tiruvallur. Cr.No.80 of 2026

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 10-07-2026

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Arunkumar S/o..Gajendran, No.133, D Block, SVM Nagar, Perambur Barracks, Chennai -12. ..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Ambattur Estate Police Station, Tiruvallur. Cr.No.80 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: The Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. praying to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.80 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s): M/s.M.Kabilan For Respondent(s): MS.R.S.INDIRA, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE)