Crl.O.P.No.17849 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Crl.O.P.No.17849 of 2026 Muthukannan ... Petitioner(s) Vs. The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, K-11, CMBT Police Station, Chennai – 600 107. ... Respondent(s) Crime No.578 of 2026 PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.578 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s) : Mr.R.Radha Pandian For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.Yogaraj Sekar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.06.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 103 and 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.578 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17849 of 2026 2. It is the case of the prosecution that, owing to a verbal altercation which escalated into a quarrel, the petitioner, along with the other accused, chased the deceased in a vehicle and ran over them, resulting in the death of two persons. Hence, the case. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner has been in custody since 07.06.2026 and that, in any event, his further custody is not required for the purpose of investigation. Hence, he prayed for the grant of bail. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of bail, reiterated the prosecution case and, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner had only mediated between the petitioner's group and the deceased's group and that he was present inside the vehicle while the other accused ran over the deceased. He would further submit that, though the petitioner had no previous enmity with the deceased, he is a close associate of the co-accused and had harboured the main accused after the occurrence. It was further submitted that the investigation is still pending and that, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of his tampering with witnesses. 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17849 of 2026 5. Considering the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that the investigation is still pending, having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the petitioner, and also the allegation that the petitioner had harboured the main accused after the occurrence, this Court is of the view that it would not be appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 10.07.2026 skr To 1. The learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore 2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 3. The Inspector of Police, K-11, CMBT Police Station, Chennai – 600 107. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17849 of 2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,J. skr Crl.O.P.No.17849 of 2026 10.07.2026 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis