Babu v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 10.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.30563 of 2025

1. Babu

2. K.Natarajan ... Petitioners Vs.

State rep by The Inspector of Police, Vadalur Police Station, Cuddalore District.

... Respondent (Crime No.307 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest, pending investigation on the file of the respondent police in Crime No.307 of 2025 on the file of the respondent. For Petitioners : Mr.V.Raghavachari, Senior Advocate for Mr.N.Subathiran For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran 1/4

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 126(2), 132, 296(b) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023 in Cr.No.307 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. Earlier this Court dismissed the petitioner's bail petition vide order dated 16.10.2025 in Crl.OP.No.28314 of 2025 for the following reasons: " Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the conduct of the petitioners in blocking the vehicle of Government Officials and preventing them from doing their lawful duties as well as threatening them with dire consequences, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The investigation is still at nascent stage and granting anticipatory bail at this juncture may embolden the petitioners to commit similar offence in future"

3. This is the successive anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted 2/4

that the petitioner's side has also lodged another complaint against the officer alleging that the officer attempted to remove the idols from the temple. In this regard, a CSR has also been registered by the respondent police, and only as a counter blast to the same, the present complaint has been lodged. He further submitted that the petitioner's interests have already been protected by the orders of this Court. Hence, he is entitled to question the officers, and he has not abused or involved himself in any illegal activities. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

4. I have gone through the FIR and the relevant facts. After taking note of the consequences, the allegations, and the fact that the complaint itself has been lodged by the Assistant Commissioner (H.R. & C.E), I am of the view that if the petitioner is released on anticipatory bail, he may indulge in similar activities. Hence, I am not inclined to reconsider the order passed by this Court earlier.

5. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 3/4

10.11.2025 Vv To

1. The District Munsif-Cum- Judicial Magistrate, Kurinjipadi.

2. The Inspector of Police, Vadalur Police Station, Cuddalore District.

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

Vv 4/4

Crl.O.P.No.30563 of 2025 10.11.2025 5/4