Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.KUMARAPPAN, J
Prabhakaran S/o. Radhakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
State rep. By The Inspector of Police Kannankurichi Police Station, Salem District. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner claims innocence, false implication. (Para 2) |
| 2. prior cases and recent fir oppose bail. (Para 3) |
| 3. bail denied due to petitioner's conduct. (Para 4) |
ORDER
The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offenceunder Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) & 351(3) ofBNS, 2023inCrime No.88 of 2026on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the petitioner has got two previous cases and that the present FIR has been registered on 22.03.2026. Hence, it is too premature to consider the grant of anticipatory bail.
4.Therefore, this Court is of the view that from the conduct of the petitioner, the petitioner does not deserve the anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
