Prabhakaran S/o. Radhakrishnan vs State rep. By The Inspector of Police Kannankurichi Police Station, Salem District.

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 32847

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
Criminal Original Petition | Crime No.88 of 2026

Important Points

Anticipatory bail denied due to prior criminal cases and recent FIR registration.

Subject

Criminal - Bail Application

Act Referred

BNS, 2023: S.296(b), S.115(2), S.118(1), S.351(3)
B.N.S.S: S.482

Headnote

The petition seeks anticipatory bail under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. in connection with offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) & 351(3) of BNS, 2023. Petitioner claims false implication and innocence. Respondent highlights petitioner's two prior cases and recent FIR registration on 22.03.2026, deeming the application premature. Court finds petitioner's conduct undeserving of relief. Issue framed around grant of anticipatory bail given prior criminal history and timing of FIR. Court's reasoning emphasizes conduct and prematurity, refusing bail on basis of previous cases. Criminal Original Petition dismissed.

Advocates:
For the Petitioner(s): M/s. W. Camyles Gandhi
For the Respondent(s):Mr.P.Dhileepan Govt.Advocate (Crl Side)

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.