Balaji v. State 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 Balaji S/o Kalimuthu, No.85, Dharmaraja Kovil Street, Coimbatore.

..Petitioner(s) Vs State represented by The Inspector of Police, Bazaar Police Station, Coimbatore City District.

(Crime No. 15 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest concerned in Crime No. 15 of 2026 pending on the file of the Respondent Police. For Petitioner(s):

Neelavathi P 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 5 and 7(3) of the Lotteries Regulation Act, 1998, in Crime No.15 of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.01.2026, at about 14.45 hours, while the respondent police were on patrol duty, one Murali was found standing in a suspicious manner and attempted to leave the place on seeing the police. On enquiry, the said Murali allegedly admitted that he was selling 3 nos of lottery tickets, which are banned by the Government of Tamil Nadu, though online mode using his mobile phone. He was arrested, and the Oppo Mobile phone alleged used for the said activity was seized. During interrogation, the said Murali is stated to have given a confession that he had received 3 nos of lottery through whatsapp from one Balaji, the petitioner herein. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of 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 has 13 previous cases to his credit, out of which 5 cases are of a similar nature. 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 13 previous cases out of which 5 cases are of a similar nature, which clearly demonstrates that 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.

23-03-2026 MPA To 1.The Inspector of Police, Bazaar Police Station, Coimbatore City District.

(Crime No. 15 of 2026) 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

MPA 23-03-2026