Sivaraj v. The State rep byThe Inspector of Police
Case at a glance
- Bench
- C KUMARAPPAN
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 482
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ss. 115(2), 125, 296(b), 351(3)
- Explosive Substances Act, 1908 s. 3(b)
Judgment
Crl.O.P.No.6878 of 2026IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 17.03.2026CORAMTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPANCrl.O.P.No.6878 of 2026 Sivaraj... PetitionerVs.The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Mangadu Police Station, Kancheepuram District. (Crime No.14 of 2026)... RespondentPRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.14 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner: Mr.R.ParthibanFor Respondent: Mr.P.Dhileepan, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)ORDERThe petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 125, 351(3) of BNS, read with Section 3(b) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, in Crime No.14 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6878 of 20262.
The case of the prosecution is that there was a money dispute between the petitioner and the de facto complainant’s son. Due to which this petitioner went to the house of the de facto complainant and threw country made bomb and caused damage to the properties of the de facto complainant. Hence, the complaint.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein arrayed as A2 and A1 is the main accused in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that due to money dispute this petitioner has thrown country made bomb in the de facto complainant’s house and caused damages to the house.
Operative part
Hence opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6878 of 20265. Considering the nature of allegation against this petitioner, this Court is of the view that if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, the same would give a negative impact on society. Hence, this Court is of the view that the petitioner does not deserve the grant of anticipatory bail. 6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.17.03.2026cdaTo1.The Inspector of Police, Mangadu Police Station, Kancheepuram District. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.6878 of 2026C.KUMARAPPAN, J.cdaCrl.O.P.No.6878 of 202617.03.20264/4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 115(2), 125, 296(b), 351(3); Explosive Substances Act, 1908 — s. 3(b).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.