Mahesh v. The State Rep By Its,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Mahesh ... Petitioner Vs State rep. by Inspector of Police, Thally Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

Crime No.118/2025.

... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.6 on bail in the event of arrest by the respondent Police in Cr.No.118 of 2025 pending on the file of respondent Police. For Petitioner :

Mr.M.Palanivel For Respondent :

Mr.V.Meganathan, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) Page No.1 of 4

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police in Crime No.118 of 2025 for offence under Sections 140(2), 296(b), 115(2), 351(3) and 49 of BNS on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, as per the complaint, the petitioner's name and another person one Kutty's name misused by the other accused and the petitioner has no any other overtact. He further submitted that earlier the petitioner was implicated in Crime No.117 of 2025 on the file of Inspector of Police, Denkanikottai Police Station, Krishnagiri. In that case, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail on 22.04.2025 in which one of the condition is that the petitioner to stay at Chennai and report before the Inspector of Police, Flower Bazar Police Station. The petitioner executed sureties in Crime No.117 of 2025 on 16.05.2025. This being so, the present case registered on 18.05.2025 as though the petitioner along with other accused had threatened the defacto complainant to execute the property in favour of Kutty. He further submits that A2 and A3 were granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.

Page No.2 of 4

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the petitioner is an History Sheeter (H.S.No.318 of 2018) and having four previous cases including one murder case. The petitioner threatened the defacto complainant to execute sale deed in favour of Kutty for the property worth of Rs.30 lakhs but the agreement for Rs.1.75 lakhs alone was entered. The petitioner forced the defacto complainant to execute the property for Rs.1.75 lakhs alone which the defacto complainant refused, hence, the petitioner and other accused A1 to A4 kidnapped the defacto complainant and ensured registration of document. The petitioner earlier involved in similar case and a case in Crime No.117 of 2025 registered by the Inspector of Police, Denkanikottai Police Station, Krishnagiri. Hence, strongly objected for grant of anticipatory bail.

4.Considering the nature of the offence and the petitioner is being an history sheeter, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 03.07.2025 vv2 Page No.3 of 4

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

vv2 To 1.The Inspector of Police, Thally Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

03.07.2025 Page No.4 of 4