Gandhi Vs State rep.by

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 Cr.No.107 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Melpatti Police Station, Melpatti, Vellore District.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Vinodh Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Section 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 351(3) of BNS, 2023 r/w. 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Harassment of Women Act, 2002 in Crime

¶17

No.107 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶18

__________ Page1 of 4

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

CRL OP No. 5849 of 2026

¶21

The allegation against the petitioner is that he alleged to have assaulted

¶22

the defacto complainant for non-payment of hand loan and when the defacto

¶23

complainant questioned the petitioner and A4, there was a wordy quarrel arose between them, in which A4 took the knife and assaulted the defacto complainant and his relatives. Hence, the case.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶25

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that in this case totally eight accused. Already A1, A2, A5 & A7 were remanded and released on bail and rest of the accused absconded. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present criminal original petition.

¶26

Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶27

From the submission made by the learned Government Advocate this petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant with a knife and as a result of which the defacto complainant was admitted in hospital and he was compelled

¶28

Page2 of 4

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

CRL OP No. 5849 of 2026

¶31

to take treatment for a period of seven days and hence, this Court is of the view that the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

¶32