IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03-11-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CRL OP No. 29824 of 2025 1. Thulasi @ Thulasi Devi W/o, Venugopal No.21,Pillaiyar Koil street,Nedumaram Village Post,Cheyyur Taluk,Chengalpattu district 2. Raghu S/o,Kumarasamy No.5/7, SengeniAmman Koil street, Umapathi Garden, Maduvingarai, Guindy,Chennai-32 3. Rahini @ Rahini Sri S/o,Nagarathinam 4. Prabakaran S/o,Manohar Above 3rd and, 4th Petitioners are residing at No.5,2nd street, Jain Nagar, Chitlapakkam, Alandur, Chennai-64 Petitioner(s) Vs 1. State rep by Inspector of Police Koovaathur Police station, Chengalpattu district In crime No. 133 of 2025) 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Respondent(s) PRAYER To enlarge the petitioners on bail, in event of their arrest, pending investigation in crime No. 133 of 2025 on the respondent Police and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): Venkatesan Athi G.Santhoshkumar For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate, Criminal Side. For Intervener Mr.R.T.Vijayaraaghavan ORDER The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 296(b), 118(1), 303(2) of BNS r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, in Crime No.133 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners joined hands with other accused, due to property dispute, had entered into the house of the de-facto complainant and attacked the mother of the de-facto complainant with knife, taken away her jewels belongs to the de-facto complainant. Due to the attack, the mother of the defacto complainant 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis severely injured. Hence the case. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was some property dispute between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant. He further submits that the injured is discharged from the hospital. However, the petitioners are ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Court. He prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4.The learned Counsel for the Intervener/De-facto complainant submits that the mother of the de-facto complainant who is aged about 58 years, was attacked by the petitioners with knife and also taken her jewels snatched by the petitioners herein and therefore, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submits that totally three accused involved in this case. He further submits that there was some property dispute between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant and subsequently, they had entered into the house of the de-facto complainant and assaulted the mother of the de-facto complainant with knife and five 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis sovereigns of gold jewels belongs to the mother of the de-facto complainant and the same was not recovered from the petitioners herein. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6. On perusal of AR copy and other connected records which reveals that the petitioners had assaulted the mother of the de-facto complainant with knife, pulled her hair and taken her jewels and the same was not recovered so far. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 03.11.2025 MSM To 1.The Inspector of Police Tiruppur City, Tiruppur District Crime No. 716 of 2025 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis K.RAJASEKAR , J. MSM Crl.O.P.No. 29824 of 2025 03.11.2025 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis