Bharath v. State Rep By, the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 189(2), 126, 296(b) and 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No.111 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. Page2 of 4

¶2The allegation against the petitioner is that the defacto complainant and the petitioners were playing cricket, during which a wordy quarrel arose between them. Thereafter, the petitioners allegedly called some other persons and attacked the defacto complainant. 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 submit that co accused were released on bail by this Court earlier. He would further submit that 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 prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the case of the prosecution and vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is arrayed as A6 in the present case. She further submitted that the injured was admitted in the hospital on 13.06.2026 and was discharged on 16.06.2026. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the petitioner has one previous criminal antecedent and a case in Crime No.187 of 2024 has been registered against him for the offence under Section 376 of IPC, which is a serious offence in nature. Page3 of 4

5.This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire occurrence had taken place during the course of a cricket game, considering the fact that the petitioner is having a previous criminal antecedent and another criminal case in Crime No.187 of 2024 has been registered against him for a serious offence, this Court finds force in the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that the petitioner appears to have misused the liberty granted to him by involving himself in yet another criminal case.

¶6In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner does not deserve the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 10-07-2026 JRS Page4 of 4

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. JRS To

1.The Inspector of Police Kondapalayam Police Station, Kondapalayam, Ranipet District Crime No.111/2026

2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. 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 Bharath S/o. Ramesh, No. 78, Mottur Village, Sholingur Taluk, Ranipet District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Kondapalayam Police Station, Kondapalayam, Ranipet District Crime No.111/2026 ..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 in Crime No.111 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent . For Petitioner(s): M/S. K.G. Senthilkumar For Respondent(s): MS.R.S.INDIRA, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE)