Dismissed¶7

Pandiyan v. The State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police

Madras HC7 May 2026CRL OP/11611/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, decision dated 07.05.2026, single judge (L. Victoria Gowri, J.). Anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS Act dismissed for five accused in Crime No.1084 of 2018 (Chengam PS, Tiruvannamalai District) charged under Sections 447, 147, 148, 294(b) and 506(2) IPC for trespass into, damage of, and abusive conduct at a government-allotted house site. Grounds for refusal: gravity of the offence and pendency of investigation. Keywords: anticipatory bail denied, Section 482 BNSS, IPC 447/147/148/294(b)/506(2), Crime No.1084/2018, Tiruvannamalai.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail was refused taking into account the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioners and the fact that the investigation is pending. ¶6

Pandiyan Vs The State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.11611 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07.05.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

CRL.O.P.No.11611 of 2026

¶7

1.Pandiyan 2. M.Sampath 3. Selvaraj 4. Arumugam 5. Raja ... Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State rep by, The Inspector of Police, Chengam Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District. (Crime No.1084 of 2018) .. Respondent

¶10

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS Act, to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police pending investigation in Crime No.1084 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.E,Sathiyaraj Elangovan For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶12

1/4

¶13

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

¶14

Crl.O.P.No.11611 of 2026

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioners, apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections

¶17

447, 147, 148, 294(b), 506(2) of IPC, in Crime No.1084 of 2018, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that the district collector allotted a house site to the defacto complainant and others and they were constructed the house in the said land and on the date of occurrence, accused entered into the house of the defacto complainant and damaged the house and abused in filthy language. Hence, the complaint.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would also submit that they have been falsely implicated in this case and hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶20

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the investigation is pending. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶21

2/4

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.11611 of 2026

¶24

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record .

¶25

6. Considering the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioners and also the fact that the investigation is pending, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶26

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

07.05.2026

sma/ep