Sirajtheen v. State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Sirajtheen ..Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Velampalayam Police Station Tiruppur City. (Crime No.62/2026) ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.62 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner:

Mr.Deepan Uday For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 281, 296(b), 132 and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 (279, 294, 353, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, in Crime No.62 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.03.2026, while the SubInspector of Traffic Police was conducting routine vehicle checking at Sirupulavapatti Road, Tiruppur, the petitioner along with his friends came in a four wheeler vehicle and failed to stop when signalled. It is further alleged that they refused to produce vehicle documents, interrupted the process of imposing fine, threatened the officials and left the place. Hence, the case was registered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged and the incident was only a wordy quarrel between the petitioner and the traffic police. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation. It is also submitted that the petitioner will not abscond or tamper with witnesses. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has got eight previous cases and one among them arises under the Arms Act, 1959 which shows his criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that the conduct of the petitioner clearly demonstrates that he is a habitual offender. Hence, he 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.

6. This Court is of the view that from the submission of the learned counsel on either side, though it is contended that the occurrence is only a wordy quarrel, it is seen that the petitioner has criminal antecedents with as many as eight previous cases, including under the Arms Act. Considering the antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the petitioner does not deserve the relief of anticipatory bail. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 23-03-2026 NSL To

1. The Inspector of Police, Velampalayam Police Station Tiruppur City.

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

NSL 23-03-2026