Rajavel v. The State, Represented By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Rajavel ..Petitioner Vs The State, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Ulundurpet Police Station, Kallakurichi District.

[Crime No.151 of 2026] ..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner on Bail in the event of arrest by the respondent police with reference to the crime in Crime No.151 of 2026 under Section 296(b),115(2),132 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, on the file of the respondent police and pass such further or other orders.

For Petitioner:

Mr.M.Himavanth For Respondent:

Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2) & 132 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, in Crime No.151 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 20.03.2026, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that the electricity supply to Ward No. 6 of Ulundurpet Municipality was disconnected on 18.03.2026. Following this, the petitioner made several phone calls to the TNEB Officer, which went unanswered. Consequently, when the lineman arrived on 20.03.2026, the petitioner allegedly abused and threatened him. Hence, the case was registered. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is no way connected to this case and has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.

Side) appearing for the respondent police submits that the petitioner has four (4) previous cases pending against him. He further submits that if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he may abscond and commit similar offences in future as well. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.I have given my 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 (Criminal Side), it is seen that the petitioner has four previous cases pending against him, which clearly demonstrates that whenever he was granted bail by the Courts, he misused the liberty granted to him. In view of the same, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may be emboldened to indulge in similar offences in the future without fear of the law. Hence, taking into consideration the interest of society at large, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 12-06-2026 (2/2) Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order VEDA To 1.The Inspector of Police, Ulundurpet Police Station, Kallakurichi District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

VEDA 12-06-2026 (2/2)