R.Deena @ Dhamodaran v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 118(1), 191(2), 191(3), 296(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No. 41 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seeks Page1 of 4 anticipatory bail.

¶2The prosecution case is that due to election related quarrel on

23.04.2026, this petitioner along with other accused persons, allegedly under the influence of alcohol, abused and assaulted the defacto complainant. During that occurrence, the A1 allegedly threw a stone at the defacto complainant, who escaped, but the stone hit one Gajendran, causing grievous injuries. Gajendran was admitted to the hospital and subsequently died on 30.04.2026. Thereafter the accused persons absconded. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the other accused were already enlarged on bail and the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court and they are willing to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the case of the prosecution and vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He submitted that there is a specific overt act attributed to the petitioner and that the petitioner had actively Page2 of 4 participated in the occurrence. He further submitted that the offence is grave in nature and the investigation is still in progress. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the anticipatory bail petition.

¶5This Court has considered the submissions made on either side.

¶6Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail and that no overt act is attributed to the petitioner. However, the learned Government Advocate strongly opposed the bail application and contended that there is a specific overt act against the petitioner. Considering the gravity of the offence, the specific allegations made against the petitioner, and the stage of investigation, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

¶7Accordingly, the anticipatory bail petition is dismissed. 21-07-2026 JRS Page3 of 4

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. JRS To

1.The Inspector of Police, Melpatti Police Station, Vellore District. Crime No.41 of 2026

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 21-07-2026 Page4 of 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN R.Deena @ Dhamodaran S/o.Rajendiran, No.2/95, Mudaliyar Street, Melmurungai, M.V.Kuppam Village and Post, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Melpatti Police Station, Vellore District. Crime No.41 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) 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 of in connection with Crime No.41 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police. For Petitioner(s): Mr. A.Vijayakumar For Respondent(s): Mrs. R.S.Indira, Govt.Advocate (crl.Side)