Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
This criminal original petition stands dismissed
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ss. 115(2), 143(2), 351(3)
- Disabilities Act, 2016
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioners and the defacto complainant are close relatives and due to election motive…
Judgment
Cause title
CRL OP(MD). No.8320 of 2026BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )Date : 06.05.2026PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHYCRL OP(MD). No.8320 of 20261.Ganesan2.Santhanapandian3.Rithis Pandian @ Rithis Pandi4.Karuppasamy @ Kuppusamy... Petitioners
/Accused Nos.1, 3 to 5 VsState of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Abiramam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. Crime No.54 of 2026 ... Respondent
/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramalingam, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.S.Prakash, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSSPRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.54/2026 on the file of the respondent police.1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.8320 of 2026
ORDER :
The Court made the following order :-The petitionerS apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences under Sections 143(2), 115(2), 351(3) of BNS r/w. Section 92 of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, in Crime No.54 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
The case of the prosecution is that the victim is a mentally challenged person. The petitioners along with other accused had committed unnatural and assault on the victim. Hence, the complaint.
Operative part
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioners and the defacto complainant are close relatives and due to election motive, a false complaint has been given against the petitioners. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.8320 of 20264. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police submitted that the petitioners are not having any previous case and that the petitioner had assaulted a mentally challenged person. He further submitted that there are specific overt act against the petitioners and the investigation is pending against the petitioners. Hence, he opposes grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.5. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that there are specific overt act against the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. This criminal original petition stands dismissed. (S S Y J) 06.05.2026iasTo1.The Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi, Ramanathapuram District. 2. The Inspector of Police, Abiramam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.8320 of 2026S.SRIMATHY,J. ias4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRL OP(MD) No.8320 of 2026 Date : 06.05.20264/4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: This criminal original petition stands dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 115(2), 143(2), 351(3); Disabilities Act, 2016.
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.