Crl.O.P.No.19018 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Crl.O.P.No.19018 of 2026 Karthik ... Petitioner(s) Vs. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Thazhambur Police Station, Chengalpattu District. ... Respondent(s) Crime No.145 of 2026 PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.145 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s) : Mr.S.Amarnath For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.Yogaraj Sekar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor(s) : Mr.R.Sivakumar ORDER The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 21.05.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 115(2), 296(b), 308(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, in Crime No.145 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.19018 of 2026 2. It is the case of the prosecution that, while the petitioner was demanding money from the Dhaba run by the defacto complainant, a quarrel arose between them, which subsequently escalated into an altercation. Enraged thereby, the petitioner allegedly set the Dhaba ablaze, as a result of which the entire business premises was reduced to ashes. 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 21.05.2026 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 though the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, he not only attempted to extort money from the defacto complainant but also set fire to the entire business premises, causing extensive damage, and that the investigation is still pending. It was further submitted 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.19018 of 2026 5. The learned counsel for the intervenor reiterated the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. 6. Considering the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that the investigation is still pending and having regard to the gravity of the allegations, particularly the allegation that the petitioner set fire to the business premises of the defacto complainant causing extensive damage, this Court is of the view that it would not be appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 21.07.2026 skr To 1. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu 2. The Superintendent, District Jail, Chengalpattu 3. The Inspector of Police, Thazhambur Police Station, Chengalpattu 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.19018 of 2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,J. skr Crl.O.P.No.19018 of 2026 21.07.2026 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis