The Madras High Court reiterates that anticipatory bail may be denied where the accused has a history of similar pending cases and custodial interrogation is considered necessary; upholds established precedent regarding judicial discretion in bail matters, providing binding precedent for subordinate courts handling anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), particularly in offences under the TNP Act 2024.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRL OP/28044/2025 of Karthishwari Vs State Rep. by The Inspector of Police |
| CNR | HCMA012465782025 |
| Date of Registration | 10-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts under Madras High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, TNP Act 2024) |
| Questions of Law | Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the accused faces numerous pending cases of similar nature and custodial interrogation is required |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that anticipatory bail may be denied where the accused faces multiple pending cases of a similar nature and when custodial interrogation is necessary for the investigation. Judicial discretion must be exercised considering both the gravity and recurrence of the alleged offences. In view of 26 pending cases, the Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail in the facts of this case. The application was accordingly dismissed. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner apprehended arrest in Crime No. 589/2025 (Keevalur Police Station, Nagapattinam) for alleged illegal possession of 114 litres of I.D. Arrack under Section 4(1)(A) TNP Act 2024; respondent opposed anticipatory bail citing 26 similar pending cases against petitioner. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts under the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering the discretion for anticipatory bail in habitual offences |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that a track record of multiple similar pending cases weighs heavily against grant of anticipatory bail.
- Clarifies that necessity of custodial interrogation, when judicially found, forms a strong basis for bail refusal.
- Emphasizes the use of judicial discretion in anticipatory bail rather than mechanical application.
- Useful reference for Government Advocates and police in opposing anticipatory bail for repeat offenders.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court found the prosecution’s claim that 26 cases of a similar nature were pending against the petitioner to be credible.
- Judicial discretion under Section 482 BNSS must be exercised by weighing both the gravity of the offence and the history of the accused.
- The nature of allegations (large quantity of contraband, habitual offending) and necessity of custodial interrogation were decisive.
- Since investigation may require custodial questioning, anticipatory bail was considered inappropriate.
- On these grounds, the petition was dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Denied committing the alleged offence.
- Claimed false implication by the prosecution.
- Prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
Respondent (State Police/Government Advocate)
- Recounted the prosecution case and serious nature of allegations.
- Highlighted 26 pending cases of similar nature against the petitioner.
- Objected to grant of anticipatory bail based on the above grounds.
Factual Background
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482, BNSS, fearing arrest in Crime No. 589 of 2025 registered by Keevalur Police Station, Nagapattinam District. The allegation was illegal possession of 114 litres of I.D. Arrack, attracting Section 4(1)(A) of the TNP Act 2024. The prosecution brought to the Court’s notice that 26 similar previous cases were pending against the petitioner. The petition was moved before arrest, with the State opposing bail.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) confers inherent powers on the High Court for securing the ends of justice, including consideration of anticipatory bail.
- Section 4(1)(A) of the TNP Act 2024 defines the specific offence (illegal possession of I.D. Arrack).
- The judgment interprets and applies these provisions to cases involving habitual offenders, though without departing from established statutory interpretation.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment applies and reaffirms established principles for exercise of judicial discretion in anticipatory bail jurisprudence, especially in cases involving habitual offenders.