CRL OP No. 18761 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 18761 of 2026 Syed Ali S/o Abdul Sambath ..Petitioner/ Accused -3 Vs State Rep By, The Inspector of Police E-1 Mylapore Police Station, Chennai 600 004.. (Crime NO.567 of 2025) ..Respondent/ Complainant Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.567 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police . For Petitioner(s): Mr.d.Saravanakumar For Respondent(s): MS.R.S.INDIRA, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE) ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 324(2), 281 and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.567 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 18761 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant's son-in- law was murdered in an earlier case, in which the defacto complainant’s daughter is a prosecution witness and the petitioner is one of the accused. It is alleged that the petitioner, along with A1 and A2, criminally intimidated the defacto complainant and her daughter, threatening them not to depose before the trial Court in the murder case. Hence, the present case has been registered against the petitioner 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, according to the prosecution, the defacto complainant's son-in-law was murdered, in which the defacto complainant is a witness and the petitioner is an accused. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with A1 and A2, intimidated the defacto complainant not to depose before the Court. However, the entire allegation in the FIR is only against A1 and A2 and not against this petitioner. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that A1 and A2 have already been released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that, at this length of time, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary, and therefore, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 18761 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 submitted that the petitioner is involved in 10 previous cases, out of which two are under Section 302 IPC, one is under the NDPS Act, besides other cases involving serious offences. It is his further submission that, in the present case, the petitioner intimidated a prosecution witness, thereby violating the bail conditions imposed upon him. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the application. 5. This Court considered the rival submissions. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-accused have already been released on bail, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), the petitioner has strong criminal antecedents and is facing trial in two murder cases. Even in the present case, according to the prosecution, the petitioner intimidated the witness not to depose before the Court. In such view of the circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner does not deserve the relief of anticipatory bail. 6. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 16-07-2026 JRS https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 18761 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 C.KUMARAPPAN, J. JRS To 1.The Inspector of Police E-1 Mylapore Police Station, Chennai 600 004.. (Crime NO.567 of 2025) 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRL OP No. 18761 of 2026 16-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis