Abdulla @ Rajkumar v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 01/07/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P(MD). No.12048 of 2026 Abdulla @ Rajkumar, ... Petitioner Vs.

The State of Tamilnadu Rep., By, the Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Taluk Police Station, Ramanathapuram District (Crime No. 86 of 2025).

... Respondent PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 86 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Venkatesh For Respondent : Mr.P.Vetrivel, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.K.Sivabalan

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 318(4), 351(2), 316(5) of BNS in Crime No.86 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

1/4

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and other accused had contacted the defacto complainant who is running a paddy procurement shop. The petitioner and other accused had purchased the paddy from the de-facto complainant and they had cheated the de-facto complainant to the tune of Rs. 22,10,000/- under the guise of paddy business. He had also threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, a case has been registered.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Further, this is the second anticipatory bail petition and the earlier petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 23.02.2026 and the petitioner is having 5 previous cases which are similar in nature.

4. On perusal of the papers, it reveals that the earlier application was already dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23.02.2026 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10333 of 2025 in the following reasons: "5. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners are doing the same offence repeatedly and the modus operandi is same. Taking into 2/4

consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, previous antecedents and the specific overt act against the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners at this stage."

5. Since no change in circumstances has been established before this Court, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. Hence, this Petition is dismissed.

01.07.2026 LS TO

1. The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Taluk Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

3/4

K. RAJASEKAR,J.

LS CRL OP(MD) No.12048 of 2026 01/07/2026 4/4