Karuppaiya v. The State Represented by the Inspector of Police

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

19.06.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.118 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2It is the case of the prosecution that, due to previous enmity, the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant and his wife, thereby causing grievous injuries. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner has been in custody since 19.06.2026 and that, in any event, his further custody is not required for the purpose of investigation. It is his specific submission that the petitioner has also suffered neurological complications as a result of the altercation. Hence, he prayed for the grant of bail.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of bail, reiterated the prosecution case and, on instructions, submitted that though the injured have been discharged from the hospital, the defacto complainant sustained fractures in both his legs and his wife sustained a fracture in her left hand. He further submitted that the investigation is still pending. It was also submitted that, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of his tampering with witnesses.

¶5The learned counsel for the Intervenor reiterated the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶6Considering the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that the investigation is still pending and having regard to the nature of the allegations, though the injured has been discharged from the hospital, taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, the same would definitely affect the social fabric and moral fibre of the society, which would also affect the conscience of the people who are residing nearby. Hence, this Court is of the view that it would not be appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶7Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

21.07.2026 skr C.KUMARAPPAN,J. skr To

¶1The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Perambalur

¶2The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Perambalur

¶3The Inspector of Police, Maruvathur Police Station, Perambalur

¶4The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras

21.07.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Karuppaiya ... Petitioner(s) Vs. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Maruvathur Police Station, Perambalur District. ... Respondent(s) Crime No.118 of 2026 Durai Raj … Intervenor(s) permitted to intervene vide order dated 21.07.2026 PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.118 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s) : Mr.T.Padmanabhan For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.Yogaraj Sekar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor(s) : Mr.D.Ashok Kumar