Karthik v. The State Rep 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 Karthik ..Petitioner Vs State rep.by its The Inspector of Police, Thudiyalur Police Station, Coimbatore District.

[Crime No.Not Known 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 his arrest in Crime No. Not Known of 2026, on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner:

Mr. Camyles Gandhi W For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 118(1) & 351(3) of BNS [294(b), 324 & 506(ii) of IPC], in Crime No.Not Known of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 07.06.2026, the petitioner had a wordy quarrel with the defacto complainant which later escalated into an assault. Hence, the complaint.

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 five (5) previous cases of similar nature 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 (Crl.Side), it is seen that the petitioner is have five previous cases of similar nature, which clearly demonstrates that whenever he was granted bail by the

Courts, he has 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 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, Thudiyalur Police Station, Coimbatore District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

VEDA 16-06-2026