CRL OP No. 18610 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY CRL OP No. 18610 of 2026 A.Aravind S/o. Asokan, 4/1, North Ratha Street, Kadai Veethi, S. Kannur (tp), Samayapuram, Tiruchirappalli 621112. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. State of Tamil Nadu rep by The Inspector of Police, Mangalmedu Police Station, Perambalur District, (Crime No.50 of 2026) 2. Mr. R. Ramachnadran M11, No.78, New Armed Police Quarters, Putdhupettai, Chennai-02. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records relating to Crime NO.50 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police, in so far the petitioner herein, arrayed as Accused No.15 and quash the proceedings in Crime NO.50 of 2026 dated 24-01-2026 and the consequent Alteration Report dated 27-01-1026, in so far the petitioner/A15, in exercise of the inherent power of this Honorable Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and thus render justice and pass such further or other orders as this Honorable Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 18610 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 For Petitioner(s): MR.V.SARAVANAN For Respondent(s): MR.R.RAJASEKARAN COUNSEL FOR GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU (CRIMINAL SIDE) FOR R1 ORDER The prayer in the Criminal Original Petition is to quash the proceedings in Crime No.50 of 2026 dated 24.01.2026 on the file of the 1st respondent Police, which is registered for the alleged offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(B), 121(1), 121(2), 195(1), 118(1), 109(1) r/w. 190 of BNSS, 2023 and Section 3(a) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 25(1A) of Arms Act, 1959 and the consequent alteration report dated 27.01.2026 for the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 121(1), 121(2), 195(1), 118(1), 109(1) r/w. 190, 249, 61(2), 49 of the BNSS, 2023 and Section 3(a) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 25(1A) of Arms Act, 1959. 2. The gist of allegations is that when the particular accused was produced before the Court and was taken back to the jail, the prime accused is said to have hurled a bomb in an attempt to kill the said accused. As far as the present petitioner is concerned, the allegation is made as if he along with others have screened them after the occurrence in a resort in Ooty. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 18610 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submit that when the place is said to be a public place and the petitioner has duly travelled to the Ooty after getting E-pass along with his other friends and when he has got no other connection with any of the prime accused whatsoever, merely because the petitioner was an acquaintance to A4 while working, the petitioner is roped in. The petitioner is awaiting enrolment and on account of the investigation pending in this case, his enrolment is also not done. At this young age of 29, the petitioner is now driven to wall and is in the precarious situation and therefore, has come up before this Court. The learned counsel would produce a set of documents relating to E-pass and the other documents which the petitioner want to rely upon, to submit that he is no way connected with the other accused. 4. In a case of this serious nature, this Court cannot take the arguments as incontrovertible at this stage itself and straight away quash the FIR against the petitioner. When it is suspected that the petitioner was also involved not in the main offence but, in the subsequent screening of the offenders, whether any offence at all is made out against the petitioner and if so, to what extent and whether the documents now produced by the petitioner will have a bearing in concluding the same will all have to be considered by the Investigating officer by taking into account the entire gamut of evidence that is collected during the process of investigation. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 18610 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 5. Considering the seriousness of the issue and the arguments that are factual in nature, I am not inclined to interfere with the First Information Report itself. Let the investigation be carried on in a fair manner by taking into account all the documents which are now submitted before this Court by the Investigating Officer and the investigation shall be expedited and final report be filed as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than three (3) months from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order. The liberty of the petitioner is kept open to agitate the matter as and when the final report is filed, if any filed, without any material against the petitioner. 6. This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above observations. 16-07-2026 Neutral Citation: No KKN https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 18610 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6 To 1. The Inspector of Police, Mangalmedu Police Station, Perambalur District, 2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 18610 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. KKN CRL OP No. 18610 of 2026 16-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis