K.Rajesh v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Batlagundu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 28.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD)No.15620 of 2026 K.Rajesh ... Petitioner / Sole Accused

Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Batlagundu Police Station, Dindigul District. (Crime No.354 of 2026) ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.354 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, or on his appearance. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukumaran

For Respondent : Mr.J.Vishnu, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.354 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 126(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant. Owing to matrimonial disputes, the defacto complainant had been residing separately with her child. It is alleged that, taking advantage of her being alone, when she had gone to purchase food for her child, the petitioner waylaid her and attacked her with a patta knife, causing injuries on her head. It is further alleged that the petitioner also attempted to attack their daughter. On hearing her cries, passers-by rescued the defacto complainant and she was admitted to the Government Hospital, Batlagundu. Thereafter, the present complaint came to be lodged, based on which the case has been registered.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no grievous injuries were caused to the defacto complainant and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶4Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that, although the injured has been discharged from the hospital, the petitioner had caused severe injuries on the head of the defacto complainant with a patta knife and had also attempted to attack their daughter. He further submitted that, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, there is every likelihood that he may threaten the defacto complainant or indulge in similar offences. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶5This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and that he attacked the defacto complainant with a patta knife causing injuries on her head and attempted to attack their daughter, this Court is not inclined to grant the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

28.07.2026 pal To

1.The Inspector of Police, Batlagundu Police Station, Dindigul District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRLoOP(MD).oNo.15620oofo2026 oK.oRAJASEKARoo,Jo. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopal ORDER oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN oooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.15620oofo2026 Dateoo:o28.07.2026