Prabu v. The State Rep.By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Prabu ..Petitioner Vs The State rep. by, Inspector of Police, Salem City Police Station, Salem District.

Crime No.4/2026.

..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 arrest in Crime No.4 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner:

Mr.C.Deepak Kumar For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 296(b), 232, 310(2), 311, 351(3) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.4 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 31.01.2025, the defacto complainant while returning from work was intercepted by a group led by one Palanisamy. It is alleged that the accused persons abused her, threatened her by

placing a knife on her neck to prevent her husband from deposing in a murder case, robbed Rs.3,500/- and also issued death threats to her family. Hence, the case was registered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that there is no specific overt act attributed to the petitioner. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner has no role in the alleged occurrence and is a permanent resident. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and will not abscond or tamper with witnesses. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has got two previous cases. It is further submitted that in the present case, the petitioner threatened the defacto complainant with the intention of preventing her husband from deposing before the Court. The learned Government Advocate would submit that such conduct clearly shows that the petitioner is likely to influence witnesses. 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, it is seen that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. It is further seen that in the present case, the allegation is that the petitioner attempted to prevent a witness from deposing in the Court. Considering the conduct of the petitioner and the possibility of misuse of liberty, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is likely to interfere with the witnesses if enlarged on anticipatory bail. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 23-03-2026 NSL To 1.The Inspector of Police, Salem City Police Station, Salem District.

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

NSL 23-03-2026