Dismissed¶29

M.Ramesh v. State rep by Inspector of Police

Madras HC10 Mar 2026CRL OP/6135/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; CRL OP No. 6135 of 2026; decided 10-03-2026 by Justice C.Kumarappan; M.Ramesh v. State rep by Inspector of Police H-4 Korukkupet Police Station, Chennai; anticipatory bail refused; Crime No.66/2026; Sections 296(b), 121(1), 351(3) BNS; Section 482 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023; assault on Sub-Inspector (public servant); grievous injury; gravity of allegations; occurrence near TASMAC (per State submission); petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Considering the gravity of the allegations - assault by the petitioner on the de facto complainant, a public servant (Sub-Inspector of Police), causing injury - and taking into consideration the consequences of granting anticipatory bail in such nature of offence to society at large, the Court declined anticipatory bail. ¶29

M.Ramesh Vs State rep by Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL OP No. 6135 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Crl.OP.No. 6135 of 2026

M.Ramesh

..Petitioner(s)

State rep by Inspector of Police H-4 Korukkupet Police Station, Chennai. Crime No.66/2026.

¶10

..Respondent(s)

¶11

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 pending investigation in Crime No. 66 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

¶12

For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Prince Premkumar For Respondent(s): P.Dhileepan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections

¶15

296(b), 121(1) and 351(3) of BNS, in Crime No.66 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶16

It is the case of the prosecution that the de facto complainant is the Sub

¶17

Inspector of Police and due to a wordy quarrel, the petitioner along with the other accused, abused and assaulted the de facto complainant, due to which, the

¶18

Page1 of 4

¶19

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

¶20

CRL OP No. 6135 of 2026

¶21

de facto complainant sustained grievous injury all over his body. Hence the case.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner and he has been falsely implicated in this case and that he is no way connected to this case. Hence, he seeks this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶23

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) while opposing grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner submitted that the petitioner along with the other accused have brutally attacked the de facto complainant and caused severe injury. He further submits that the occurrence took place near a TASMAC.

¶24

I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶25

From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this is a case where the petitioner assaulted the de facto complainant who is a public servant and caused injury to him. In this regard, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has also submitted copies of the photographs before this Court in order to show the nature of injury sustained by the de facto complainant. Considering the gravity of the allegations, and taking into

¶26

Page2 of 4

¶27

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

¶28

CRL OP No. 6135 of 2026

¶29

consideration of consequences of granting anticipatory bail in such nature of the offence in the society at large, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed.

¶30

10.03.2026

¶31

rap To

¶32