Dismissed¶29

Thirupathy v. The State Rep by The Inspector of Police

Madras HC28 Jul 2026CRL OP/20231/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, CRL OP No. 20231 of 2026, decided 28-07-2026 by Justice C.Kumarappan: anticipatory bail application in Crime No. 115 of 2026 (Kandili Police Station, Tirupattur District) for alleged offences under Section 326(a) BNS Act and 21(1) TNP Act, 1957 dismissed; refusal grounded in six previous cases (four similar in nature) evidencing misuse of earlier bail liberty and risk of further offences against societal interest. Search terms: anticipatory bail denied, antecedents, misuse of bail, previous cases, BNS 326(a), TNP Act 21(1), Kandili, Tirupattur.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's six previous cases, four of them similar in nature, clearly demonstrate that whenever he was granted anticipatory bail by the Courts, he misused the liberty granted to him. ¶28

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

¶1

CRL OP No. 20231 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 28-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 20231 of 2026

Thirupathy

..Petitioner(s)

The State Rep by The Inspector of Police Kandili Police Station, Tirupattur District. Crime no.115 of 2026.

¶10

..Respondent(s)

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime no.115 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the Respondent Police.

¶12

For Petitioner(s): Sanjay A

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 326(a) of BNS Act, and 21(1) of TNP Act, 1957 Crime No. 115 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶16

Page1 of 4

¶17

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

¶18

CRL OP No. 20231 of 2026

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that the accused intentionally obstructed

¶20

the defacto complainant from carrying out his lawful work and caused disturbance at the place of occurrence. Hence, the case.

¶21

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the Petitioners.

¶22

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that six previous cases were pending against the petitioner out of which four cases were similar in nature. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶23

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶24

Page2 of 4

¶25

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

¶26

CRL OP No. 20231 of 2026

¶27

6. From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate

¶28

(Crl.Side), it is seen that the petitioner has got six previous cases out of which four cases were similar in nature, which clearly demonstrates that whenever he was granted anticipatory bail by the Courts, he has misused the liberty granted to him. In view of the same, if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory 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.

¶29