Miltonraja Vs State rep.by

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.33 of 2026, pending on the file of the respondent.

¶12

For Petitioner: Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi For Respondent: Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner/A1, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under

¶15

Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), and 351(3) of the B.N.S. Act, 2023, in Crime

¶16

No.33 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶17

Page1 of 5

¶18

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

¶19

CRL OP No.7123 of 2026

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, the petitioner/A1, along with other accused abused the de-facto complainant in filthy language and assaulted him with a wooden log. Due to this, the de-facto complainant sustained injuries and was admitted to the hospital. Hence, the case.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and he is ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶22

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that the de-facto complainant is the former driver of the petitioner/A1, and that five previous cases have been registered against the petitioner. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶23

__________ Page2 of 5

¶24

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

¶25

CRL OP No.7123 of 2026

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶27

Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent.

¶28

From the submission made by the learned Government Advocate

¶29

(Crl.Side), this is an issue between the former employee of the petitioner and petitioner. According to the Government Advocate (Crl.Side), the petitioner has got five previous cases, which clearly demonstrates that, as and when the petitioner was enlarged on bail, he subverted the justice and misused the liberty

¶30

given by this Court. Hence, he does not deserve anticipatory bail.

¶31