SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 49652

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
B.Pugalendhi, J
Mayachandru – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu – Respondent
Crl.OP(MD)No.12301 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Balamuruganantham.R
For the Respondents:Mr.P.Kottaichamy Government Advocate (Crl.side)

A court may dismiss a bail application if objections are raised regarding the circumstances of the case.

Headnote:This judgment concerns a Criminal Original Petition under Section 528 of BNSS for bail consideration. The petitioners, A1 & A2, were implicated in a case alleging physical assault and caste-based abuse (Crime No. 165 of 2025). The court found no merit in entertaining the petition due to objections related to retaliation from a prior incident. Thus, it concluded that the petition for bail was dismissed.

Table of Content
1. case concerns bail application in context of assault. (Para 1 , 2)
2. counsel argues prior incident leads to current allegations. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court dismisses the petition based on objections raised. (Para 5)

O R D E R

The petitioners are A1 & A2 in Crime No.165 of 2025, on the file of the second respondent Police. The said case was registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 191 (2), 191(3), 126(2), 296(b), 118(1), 109(1), 351(3) of B NS and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Therefore, the petitioners have filed this petition seeking a direction to Special Court concerned to dispose of their bail application on the date of their surrender.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 03.07.2025 at about

10.15 pm, near Eriodu Government Middle School, one Mayachandru along with other accused abused the defacto complainant, by stating his caste name and also attacked the defacto complainant with knife.

Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that out of the incident, which took place on 14.06.2025, this incident is taken place. The first petitioner is a practicing advocate and he has been implicated in this case, as he has represented the co-accused in previous occurrence.

4.Mr.P.Kottaichamy, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), who takes notice for the respondents 1 & 2 submits that this occurrence is of retaliation to the earlier incident, which was registered in Crime No.150 of 2025 and therefore, he objects for grant of relief to the petitioners.

5.In view of the objections raised by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top