Thirupathy Balaji @ Venkatesan v. The State Rep.By,

ORDER The petitioners herein apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 118(1), 351(2) Page2 of 4 BNS, in Crime No.145 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The prosecution alleges that on May 19, 2026, at approximately 7:40 AM, the defacto complainant, a driver employed at Annamalaiyar Farm Sakthiman Company, encountered the petitioners at the Bharat Petrol Bunk on Chengam Road, Tiruvannamalai. When the complainant honked his horn and requested the petitioners to move their parked vehicle forward, a confrontation ensued. The petitioners verbally abused the defacto complainant, opened their vehicle door to kick him, and, along with two unidentified individuals, pelted stones at him. Furthermore, the petitioners issued criminal threats, intimidating the complainant by stating that they would burn down his employer's company and take his life.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are no way connected to this case and has been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submits that the 1st petitioner is having seventeen previous cases and the 2nd petitioner is having three previous cases. He further submits Page3 of 4 that if the petitioners are enlarged on anticipatory bail, they may abscond and commit similar offences in future as well. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶5I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.

6.From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), it is seen that the petitioners have previous cases against them, which clearly demonstrates that whenever they were granted anticipatory bail by the courts, they misused the liberty granted to them. In view of the same, if the petitioners are enlarged on anticipatory bail, they may be emboldened to indulge in similar offences in the future without fear of the law. Hence, taking into consideration the interest of society at large, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.

7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 05-06-2026 GBI Page4 of 4

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. GBI To

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai Town Police Station, Thiruvannamalai.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 05-06-2026

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1. Thirupathy Balaji @ Venkatesan S/o.Veerasamy, No.98, M.G.R.Nagar, Peumbakkam road, Thiruvannamalai Town. 2. Paramasivam S/o.Venkatesan, No.98, MGR nagar, Peumbakkam road, Thiruvannamalai Town. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The state rep.by, The Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai Town Police Station, Thiruvannamalai. Cr.NO.145 of 2026. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to grant enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest in connection with FIR No.145 of 2026 pending investigation on the fiel of respondent police. For Petitioner(s): M/S.G.Uma Maheswari For Respondent(s): MS.R.S.INDIRA, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE)