Dismissed¶¶24

Sathish v. State By its Inspector of Police

Madras HC15 Jul 2026CRL OP/18580/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court anticipatory bail denial; Section 482 BNSS 2023 petition dismissed; BNS 2023 Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3); Crime No.210/2026 Sholingur Police Station Ranipet District; grievous injuries; videographic footage; rude behaviour towards injured; wrong signal to society / moral fibre rationale; judge C.Kumarappan; dated 15-07-2026.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the videographic footage of the alleged incident produced by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), it was seen that the petitioner behaved very rudely towards the injured, who was admitted in hospital for a considerable period having sustained grievous injuries. ¶¶23

Sathish Vs State By its Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL OP No. 18580 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

CRL OP No. 18580 of 2026

¶7

1.Sathish, S/o Pazhani

¶8

Vinoth Kumar, S/o Radhakrishnan.

¶9

..Petitioners/ Accused 1 & 2

¶10

¶11

The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Sholingur Police Station, Sholingur, Ranipet District. Crime.No. 210/2026

¶12

..Respondent/ Complainant

¶13

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.210 of 2026 on the file of respondent police in the event of their arrest.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Mohan Babu P For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections

¶17

296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.210 of 2026 on

¶18

the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

¶19

__________ Page1 of 4

¶20

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

¶21

CRL OP No. 18580 of 2026

¶22

2.When the matter was taken up, the learned Government Advocate

¶23

(Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police produced the videographic footage of the alleged incident. On perusal of the same, it is seen that the petitioner behaved very rudely towards the injured. The injured was admitted in the hospital and remained there for considerable period, having sustained grievous injuries. Considering these factual circumstances, this Court is of the view that, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it would send a wrong signal to society and affect its moral fibre. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

¶24