Arul Prakash v. The State Rep, by Inspector of Police,

Order The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 120B, 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, in Crime No.192 of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, namely Kalimuthu Kumar, was introduced to the Petitioner and his brother i.e. A-1 Page2 of 4 through one Senthil kumar during the year 2023. It is further alleged that the defacto complainant was the owner of a lorry bearing Registration No.KA 35 D 2824 and that on 05.03.2023, the Petitioner and A1 he A-1 took the said lorry on lease, agreeing to pay the monthly dues payable to the finance company as well as a monthly amount to the defacto complainant. Thereafter, it is alleged that the petitioner and the other accused failed to pay the monthly instalments and did not return the said lorry to the defacto complainant. It is further alleged that, when the defacto complainant approached the petitioner on

01.02.2026, regarding the same, he was threatened and subjected to intimidation with dire consequences. Hence the case.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and upon instructions submitted that the petitioner has got four previous cases. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶5Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent. Page3 of 4

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

¶7From the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), it is seen that the petitioner has four previous cases, similar in nature, which clearly demonstrates that the petitioner has misused the liberty granted by this Court and subverts the course of justice by repeatedly committing the similar offences. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶8Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 16-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order AH To

1.The Inspector of Police, Sankari Police Station, Salem District.

2.The Judicial Magistrate - I, Sankari.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o13046oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPANoJ. AH CRLoOPoNo.o13046oofo2026 16-06-2026 Page4oofo4 Page5 of 4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Arul Prakash S/o. Angamuthu Pillai, No.5, Kamaraj Nagar, Muthu Building, Kumarapalaiyam, Ellandakuttai, Namakkal District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep, by Inspector of Police, Sankari Police station, Salem District. (Crime No. 192/2026) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, praying to order enlarge the Petitioner on bail on the event of arrest in Crime No. 192 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police. For Petitioner(s): Mr.C. Deepak Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Palanivel, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)