Ravi Vs The State represented by The Inspector of Police

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.222 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.V.Illanchezian For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.Yogaraj Sekar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor(s) : Mr.L.Poovendra Perumal

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

¶14

27.06.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 118(1),351(3), 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 r/w Section 3 of the

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.18868 of 2026

¶18

Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damages and Losses) in Crime No.220 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶19

2 . It is the case of the prosecution that, since the defacto complainant had lodged a criminal case against the petitioners, they waylaid the wife of the defacto complainant and attacked her using wooden logs, thereby causing grievous injuries. Hence, the case.

¶20

3 . The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioners have been in custody since 27.06.2026 and that, in any event, their further custody is not required for the purpose of investigation. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail.

¶21

4 . The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of bail, reiterated the prosecution case and, on instructions, submitted that, though the injured has been discharged from the hospital, the investigation is still pending. It was further submitted that, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of their tampering with witnesses.

¶22

2/4

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.18868 of 2026

¶25

5 . The learned counsel for the Intervenor reiterated the submissions made

¶26

by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners.

¶27

6 . Considering the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.

¶28

Side) that the investigation is still pending and having regard to the nature of the allegations, this Court is of the view that it would not be appropriate to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage.

¶29