Mani @ Manikandan v. The State Rep.By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 13.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Mani @ Manikandan ... Petitioner/A3 Vs.

The State rep by, The Inspector of Police, Veppadai Police Station, Namakkal District.

... Respondent (Crime No.42 of 2026) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest pending investigation in Crime No.42 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.Deepak Kumar C For Respondent :

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

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 140(3), 62 of BNS in Crime No.42 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the defacto complainant 1/4

received a call from someone claiming to know of a four-acre land available for purchase and seeking a loan to acquire it. Insisting on document verification first, the defacto complainant was invited to inspect them near Goundanur. On the date of occurrence, the defacto complainant reached near the Goundanur underpass on the NH road, at that time two persons who spoke with the defacto complainant and he noticed some suspicion and immediately left the place and later when he tried calling back, the phone was switched off. Hence, a case has been registered based on his apprehension that they attempt to kidnap him.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and it is a false accusation. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that the petitioner is a history sheeted rowdy having previous 2/4

criminal antecedents in his credit. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. From the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that, it is pellucid that it is not an appropriate case to consider the anticipatory bail application, in view of the criminal antecedents involved by the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 13.03.2026 ssi To:

1.The Inspector of Police, Veppadai Police Station, Namakkal District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN , J.

ssi 3/4

13.03.2026 4/4