M.R.Thenkovan Vs State rep.by

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.47 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

¶11

For Petitioner: Mr.Jayaraman For Respondent: Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No.47 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶14

The case of the prosecution is that on 22.02.2026 at about 11.00 p.m.,

¶15

one Dinesh S/o. Senthilkumar was murdered at Kelamangalam Main Road near Royal Kings Bar within the jurisdiction of the respondent police station. Based

¶16

Page1 of 4

¶17

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

¶18

CRL OP No. 7170 of 2026

¶19

on the occurrence, the respondent police registered the case and arrested six accused persons. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, the name of the present petitioner was included on 04.03.2026.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and his name has been included subsequently without any material. The learned counsel would further submit that the implication is only based on the alleged confession of co-accused. It is also submitted that there is no overt act attributed to the petitioner. Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶21

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has got as many as 13 previous cases and he is a history-sheeter. It is further submitted that even in the present case, the petitioner has been charged under Section 103 of BNS, 2023, which is a serious offence. It is also submitted that whenever the petitioner was granted bail earlier, he has misused the same. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶22

I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

¶23

Page2 of 4

¶24

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

¶25

CRL OP No. 7170 of 2026

¶26

This Court is of the view that from the submission of the learned

¶27

counsel on either side, it is seen that the petitioner has criminal antecedents with as many as 13 previous cases and is a history-sheeter. It is further seen that even in the present case, the petitioner is charged for a serious offence under Section 103 of BNS, 2023. Considering the antecedents of the petitioner and the submission that he has misused the liberty granted earlier, this Court is of the view that the petitioner does not deserve the relief of anticipatory bail. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶28