Dismissed¶¶30

Sathishkumar v. State rep. by its, The Inspector of Police

Anticipatory bail – S.482 BNSS, 2023

Madras HC17 Apr 2026CRL OP/9567/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; CRL OP No. 9567 of 2026; decided 17-04-2026 by C.Kumarappan J.; anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 refused; offences alleged under Sections 296(b), 132 & 351(2) of BNS in Crime No.82 of 2026, Kannankurichi Police Station, Salem District; allegation of demanding mamool from a Tasmac shop; two previous cases pending against second petitioner; likelihood of repetition of similar offences; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Court declined to grant anticipatory bail, reasoning that there are two previous cases pending against the second petitioner and that, if anticipatory bail were granted, there is every likelihood that the petitioners would commit similar kinds of offence. ¶¶29

Sathishkumar Vs State rep. by its, The Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL OP No. 9567 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 17-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

CRL OP No. 9567 of 2026

¶7

Sathishkumar S/o. Murugan, Door No.4/1/3, TKN Venkatachalam Street, Kannankurichi, Salem District.

¶8

Moorthi S/o. Soundarrajan, No.55, Gandhi Nagar, MGR Silai Near. Kannankurichi, Salem District.

¶9

..Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

State rep. by its, The Inspector of Police, KANNANKURICHI Police Station, Salem District (Crime No. 82 of 2026)

¶12

..Respondent(s)

¶13

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 82 of 2026, on the file of the respondent and thus render justice.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi For Respondent(s): MR.P.DHILEEPAN, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL SIDE)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 132 & 351(2) of BNS, in Crime No.82 of 2026 on the file of the

¶17

Page1 of 4

¶18

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

¶19

CRL OP No. 9567 of 2026

¶20

respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶21

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners asked mamool from the Tasmac shop. Hence, the complaint.

¶22

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that they are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶23

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the second petitioner is involved in two previous cases and if anticipatory bail is granted, it will send a wrong signal to the society. Therefore, he opposed the petition.

¶24

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

¶25

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the fact that there are two previous cases pending against the second petitioner and if anticipatory bail is granted, there is every likelihood that the

¶26

Page2 of 4

¶27

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

¶28

CRL OP No. 9567 of 2026

¶29

petitioners would commit similar kind of offence. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶30