Dismissed¶31

Nanthakumar v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC29 Jun 2026CRL OP(MD)/12597/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail rejected; habitual offender with 15 previous cases including murder; grievous injury caused with loudspeaker/Sound box; Sections 296(b), 118(1), 351(3) BNS Act 2023; Cr.No.201/2026 Musiri PS; CRL OP(MD) No.12597 of 2026; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; Justice K. Rajasekar; dismissed 29.06.2026.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail is declined because the list of previous cases shows the petitioner is a habitual offender with various offences including a case of murder; the Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail at this stage, and the petition stands dismissed. ¶30

Nanthakumar Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.12597 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 29/06/2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

¶6

CRL OP(MD). No.12597 of 2026

¶7

Nanthakumar ... Petitioner/Sole Accused

¶8

¶9

The State of Tamilnadu Rep By, The Inspector of Police, Musiri Police Station, Tiruchirappalli District. Cr.No.201/2026. ... Respondent/Complainant

¶10

PRAYER :-

¶11

For Anticipatory bail in Cr.No.201/2026 on the file of the respondent police.

¶12

For Petitioner : Bharathiveerakumar J, Advocate.

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.Murugesan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

CRL OP(MD). No.12597 of 2026

¶19

Sections 296(b), 118(1) & 351(3) of BNS Act, 2023, in Crime No.201 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶20

The allegation against the petitioner is that on 06.05.2026 at about 01.15 hours, the petitioner developed quarrel with the defacto complainant and attacked him with a loudspeaker/Sound boz and caused grievous injuries. Hence, case has been registered.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the injured was discharged from the hospital and though the petitioner has 15 previous cases, out of which, 3 cases were already disposed of. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶22

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police, submitted that the petitioner attacked the defacto

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

CRL OP(MD). No.12597 of 2026

¶26

complainant and caused injuries and the investigation is at preliminary stage and the petitioner is a habitual offender and he has 15 previous

¶27

cases. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶28

I have gone through the FIR and also the connected materials.

¶29

The list of previous cases shows that the petitioner is a habitual

¶30

offender and he is having various offences including a case of murder. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, at this stage.

¶31