CRL OP No. 6317 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 6317 of 2026 Karthik ..Petitioner Vs State represented by The Inspector of Police T-16, Semmanchery Police Station, Chennai District. Crime No. 10/2026. ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No. 10 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner: Mr.S.Vedavalli For Respondent: Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 16.01.2026 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 125, 126(2), 296(b), 309(4), 311, 324(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No.10 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on the date of occurrence, the petitioner along with other accused persons allegedly waylaid the defacto https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 6317 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 complainant during night hours, demanded money from him and when he refused, they abused him in filthy language, assaulted him and extorted a sum of Rs.2,700/- and a mobile phone at knife point. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner/Karthick has been arrayed as A3. According to him, the petitioner was arrested on 16.01.2026 and since then he has been in judicial custody. The learned counsel would further submit that the present case is a false and foisted case. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent strongly opposed the bail application on the ground that petitioner has about seven previous criminal cases pending against him. He would further submit that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of his committing further offences and disturbing public peace. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner. 5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 6. From the submission of the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and the nature of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 6317 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 allegations against him cannot be ignored. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 12-03-2026 NSL To 1. The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Sholinganallur. 2. Central Prison, Puzhal. 3. The Inspector of Police, T-16, Semmanchery Police Station, Chennai District. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 6317 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 C.KUMARAPPAN, J. NSL CRL OP No. 6317 of 2026 12-03-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis