Dismissed¶29

Murthuja Ahamed v. The State Rep by The Inspector of Police

Anticipatory bail – S.482, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Madras HC22 Jul 2026CRL OP/19442/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; Crl.O.P.No.19442 of 2026; C. Kumarappan, J.; decided 22.07.2026; anticipatory bail refused/dismissed; Section 482 BNSS 2023; Section 117(3) BNS 2023; three previous cases; history sheeter; Murthuja Ahamed; R11 Royala Nagar Police Station, Tiruvallur District; Crime No.not known of 2026.

What did the court decide?

The Court found that the petitioner has three previous cases and is a history sheeter, and that if enlarged on anticipatory bail it may embolden him to indulge in further offences. ¶28

Murthuja Ahamed Vs The State Rep by The Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.19442 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 22.07.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.19442 of 2026

Murthuja Ahamed

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, R11 Royala Nagar Police Station, Tiruvallur District. (Crime No.not known of 2026) ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.not known of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

¶12

For Petitioner : Ms.M.Preethi

¶13

For Respondent : Ms.R.S.Indira Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶14

1/4

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.19442 of 2026

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 117(3) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.not known of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that on 06.07.2026, the petitioner is

¶20

alleged to have assaulted the defacto complainant and caused injuries on his face. Hence, the case.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

¶22

has been falsely implicated in this case and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner

¶23

is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶24

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), appearing for the respondent Police, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the injured was discharged from the hospital and the petitioner has three previous 2/4

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.19442 of 2026 cases and he is a history sheeter. He would further submit that, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, there is every likelihood of indulging in further offence. Therefore, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶27

I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

¶28

From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police, it is clear that the petitioner has three previous cases and he is a history sheeter. If the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, it may embolden him to indulge in further offences. Hence, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

¶29