M.R.Thenkovan v. State Represented By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN M.R.Thenkovan ..Petitioner Vs State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Kelamangalam Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

(Crime No.47 of 2026) ..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023 praying to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 47/2026 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner:

Mr.N.Sakthi Saravanan For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.47 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.02.2026 at about 11.00 pm., one Dinesh S/o. Senthikumar was murdered at Kelamangalam Main Road near

Royal Kings Bar within the jurisdiction of the respondent police station. Based on the occurrence, the respondent police registered the case and arrested six accused persons. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, the name of the present petitioner was included on 04.03.2026. 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 is having ten (10) previous cases pending against him apart from having allegations under Section 103 of BNS, 2023, which is a serious offence. 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 (Crl.Side), it is seen that the petitioner has got ten previous cases, which clearly demonstrates that whenever he was granted bail by the Courts, he has misused the liberty granted to him. It is further seen that even in the present case, the petitioner is charged for a serious offence under Section 103 of BNS, 2023. In view of the same, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may be emboldened to indulge in similar offences in future without fear of law. Hence, taking into consideration of interest of the society at large, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 16-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order VEDA To 1.The Inspector of Police, Kelamangalam Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

VEDA 16-06-2026