Ponmani v. The State Rep by

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

15.06.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 118(1) & 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment Women (Amendment) Act, 2002 in Crime No.167 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page2 of 4

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, while returning from Sabarimala on 18.04.2026, received a phone call from a person posing as an Amazon delivery executive. On the following day, i.e., 19.04.2026, when the defacto complainant came out of his house to receive the alleged parcel, two unidentified persons arrived wrongfully restrained him and assaulted him with a baseball bat, causing injuries. When the complainant's sister attempted to rescue him, she was also assaulted. The accused persons thereafter intimidated the neighbours with the baseball bat and fled from the scene. Hence, the present case.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The learned counsel would also submit that the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail in Crl.O.P.No.15620 of 2026 dated 22.06.2026 and the petitioner is similarly placed. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 05.06.2026. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) strongly opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender. It is submitted that the petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant with a baseball bat causing fracture injuries, due to which the defacto complainant remained hospitalized from 19.04.2026 to 22.04.2026. It is further submitted that the Page3 of 4 petitioner has seven previous criminal cases, including one case under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, five theft cases and one hurt case.

¶5I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

¶6Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the co-accused has already been released on bail, the criminal antecedents of the present petitioner stand on a different footing. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), the petitioner has seven previous criminal cases, including a case under Section 302 of IPC, several theft and hurt cases. Taking into consideration the serious nature of the allegations, the fracture injuries sustained by the defacto complainant and the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petitions stands dismissed. 16-07-2026 NSL To

¶1The Inspector of Police, Peerkankaranai Police Station, Tambaram District.

¶2The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o18825oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. NSL CRLoOPoNo.o18825oofo2026 16-07-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Ponmani ..Petitioner Vs State of Rep by:- The Inspector of Police, Peerkankaranai Police Station, Tambaram District. Crime No.167 of 2026. ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner/Accused on bail in Crime No.167 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Peerkankaranai Police Station. For Petitioner: Mr.P.Agilan For Respondent: Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu (Criminal Side)