CRL OP No. 17148 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 17148 of 2026 1. B Sabari Binny No.4-42 Gokulam Coloney 4th Street, PN PUDUR, Coimbatore North, Coimbatore-641041. 2. Hari Prasaad S/o.Manian, No.3/3, Mullai Nagar, Kovaipudur, Coimbatore - 641010. 3. K.Vinu S/o.Krishtydass, No.1/192, VOC Street, Chinniam Palayam, Coimbatore - 641062. ..Petitioner(s) Vs State represented by The Inspector of Police Cybercrime, Salem City Police Station.No.4-42 Gokulam Coloney 4th Street,PN PUDUR, Coimbatore North,Coimbatore-641041 ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, praying to enlarge the petitioner on Anticipatory Bail in the event of arrest made by the respondent Police in Crime no.13 of 2026 dated 22.11.2025 on the file of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 17148 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 Respondent Police and pass such order or other reliefs as this Honouarable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case. For Petitioner(s): M/S. K.Natesh Pandi For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Palanivel, Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side) ****** ORDER The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 204, 318(4), 336 of BNSS, in Crime No.13 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The prosecution alleges that the petitioners allegedly demanded the de facto complainant a sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs threatening that, some private videos will be circulated, due to which the de facto complainant paid the said amount. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are no way connected to this case and has been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 17148 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submits that the petitioners are having previous cases of similar nature. He further submits that if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, they may abscond and commit similar offences in future as well. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available. 6.From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), it is seen that the petitioners have previous cases against them, which clearly demonstrates that whenever they were granted anticipatory bail by the Courts, they misused the liberty granted to them. In view of the same, if the petitioners are enlarged on anticipatory bail, they may be emboldened to indulge in similar offences in the future without fear of the law and there are prone to recidivism. Hence, taking into consideration the interest of society at large, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 17148 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 C.KUMARAPPAN, J. KMI 7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 06-07-2026 KMI To 1.The Inspector of Police Cybercrime, Salem City Police Station. 2.The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court. CRL OP No. 17148 of 2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis