Appun @ Syed Ali v. The State Rep.By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Appun @ Syed Ali S/o.Abdul Sambath, No.30/4, 1st Street, Bazar Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.

..Petitioner(s) Vs The state rep.by, Inspector of Police, E-1, Mylapore Police Station, Chennai-600 004.

Cr.No.567 of 2025.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to pass an order enlarging the petitioner on anticipatory bail pending investigation in Cr.No.567 of 2025, dated 20.10.2025 on the file of the respondent police and pass such further or other orders as this Honble court. For Petitioner(s):

Harsha Vardhini For Respondent(s):

Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 324(2), 281

and 351(3) of BNS and 4 of TNPHW Act in Crime No.567 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner joined hands with other accused threatened the witness in the murder case (defacto complainant's daughter) and also threatened the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a false complaint has been lodged since the petitioner has some previous cases, and for the purpose of detaining him, this case has been registered. He further submitted that this is the second anticipatory bail petition and the earlier petition was dismissed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.35071 of 2025 dated 02.01.2026. Therefore, he prays for grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner is having 9 previous cases including a case of murder. Hence opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given 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 (Crl.Side), it is seen that the petitioner has bad antecedents of 9 previous cases, and considering the fact that a witness in a criminal case has been threatened, this Court is of the view that, in these type of cases, if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, it may embolden him to indulge in similar acts. Hence, this Court is of the view that the petitioner does not deserve the grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 13-03-2026 MPA To 1.The Inspector of Police, E-1, Mylapore Police Station, Chennai-600 004.

Cr.No.567 of 2025.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

MPA 13-03-2026