Kumaresan v. The State Rep. By Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Kumaresan S/o. Sigamani, No.87, Big Street, Peruvalayam,Nemili Taluk, Ranipet District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. By Inspector of Police Walajapet Police Station, Ranipet District, Crime No.206 of 2025 ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, praying to grant an anticipatory bail to the petitioner in event of his arrest in Crime No.206 of 2025 pending on the file of the respondent police and pass such further or other order it may be deem fit and proper in the above circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.B. Gopalakrishnan For Respondent(s):

Mr.N.Palanivel, Govt Advocate (Crl Side) for Respondent ********

ORDER

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 318(4), 296(b) and 351(2) of BNS in Crime No.206 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with the other accused, under the guise of arranging loan for the de facto complainant, obtained power of attorney in favour of A3 and thereafter, by misusing the power of attorney, A3 executed a sale deed in favour of A4. When the de facto complainant came to know about the sale deed, he demanded the petitioner to return back the properties. In response, the petitioner demanded repayment of Rs.14,00,000/-, which paid by him to the de facto complainant.

Subseqently, the de facto complainant returned the money to the petitioner. Even thereafter, the petitioner did not come forward to execute the sale deed. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in no way connected to this case and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution.

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 one previous case of similar nature. He further submits that if the petitioner is granted anticipatory 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 one previous case against him, which clearly demonstrates that whenever he is granted anticipatory bail by the Courts, he misused the liberty granted to him. In view of the same, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory 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 grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

KMI 7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 15-06-2026 KMI To 1.The Inspector of Police Walajapet Police Station, Ranipet District.

2.The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court.