Senthilkumar v. State Rep. by the Station House Officer

ORDER The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 351(2) of BNS Act in Crime No.60 of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, the petitioners waylaid the defacto complainant, abused him in filthy language, forcibly took his two wheeler, and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the de facto complainant is a relative of the petitioners and that no injury was sustained by him. It is further submitted that the vehicle allegedly taken from the defacto complainant belongs to the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners seek to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶4At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would strongly oppose the application on the ground that the petitioners have one previous case to their credit. Page2 of 4

¶5The learned counsel for the intervener would invite the attention of this Court to the fact that an FIR had already been registered against the very same petitioners in Crime No. 15 of 2026 for assault on the de facto complainant, wherein the Sessions Court had granted anticipatory bail on

12.01.2026, subject to a specific condition that the petitioners shall not tamper with witnesses. However, after obtaining anticipatory bail, the petitioners have misused the liberty granted and have again come to the adverse notice of the police by committing a similar offence against the defacto complainant.

¶6I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.

¶7Considering the above, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner have misused the liberty granted by the Court and have subverted the course of justice by committing a similar offence on 18.02.2026. Therefore, in view of the above factual position, the petitioners do not deserve anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 18-03-2026 MPA Page3 of 4

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. MPA To

¶1The Station House Officer Panruti Potice Station, Cuddatore District. ln Cr.No.60 of 2026

¶2The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. and Crl.M.P.No.4785 of 2026 18-03-2026 Page4 of 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN and Crl.M.P.No.4785 of 2026 1.Senthilkumar S/o. Muthukrishnan, No.22, Chettipattarai Colony, Thiruvatigai, Panruti, Cuddalore District. 2.Sadhankumar No.22, Chettipattarai Colony,Thiruvatigai,Panruti,Cuddalore District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep. by the Station House Officer Panruti Potice Station, Cuddatore District. ln Cr.No.60 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to grant Anticipatory bait to the Petitioners, in the event of their arrest, concerned in Crime No. 60 of 2026, on the file of the Respondent Police on such terms and conditions and as this Honble court may deem fit and proper and thus render justice. For Intervener: Mr.N.S.Sivakumar For Petitioner(s): R Parthiban For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Page1 of 4