Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 15-09-2026

Case Overview

  • Petition No. CRL OP No. 24516 of 2026 filed by S. Prabhakaran (petitioner) seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) against possible arrest by the first respondent police in execution of a Non‑Bailable Warrant (NBW) issued in S.T.C. No. 10829 of 2025.
  • The underlying complaint is a Section 138 offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed by the second respondent, Avanse Financial Services Limited, alleging a cheque‑bounce.
  • The NBW was issued by the learned XXXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No. 1, Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai, after a bailable warrant failed to secure the petitioner’s appearance.
  • The petitioner previously moved Crl.M.P. No. 7438 of 2026 under Section 72(2) of the Sanhita to recall the NBW; the magistrate dismissed that recall petition on the same day.
  • Subsequent petitions Crl.O.P. (SR) No. 51306 of 2026 (under Section 528) and Crl.O.P. (SR) No. 49792 of 2026 (to set aside the warrant) are pending numbering.
  • The Registry objected, questioning the applicability of Section 138 NI Act to an anticipatory bail petition under Section 482.
  • The petitioner relied on Regupathi v. Govindan (2006) which held that a High Court may grant anticipatory bail in a Section 138 case despite a NBW.
  • The Court examined statutory provisions: Section 482(1) of the Sanhita applies only when the alleged offence is non‑bailable; Section 138 NI Act is punishable with imprisonment up to two years, classifying it as a bailable offence under Part II of the First Schedule.
  • Supreme Court precedents (R.K. Krishna Kumar v. State of Assam, 1998; Joginder @ Jindi v. State of Haryana, 2008) affirm that anticipatory bail under Section 438 (and by analogy Section 482) is unavailable for bailable offences.
  • The Court noted that the presence of an NBW does not alter the statutory classification of the offence; a warrant is merely a process to secure attendance.
  • Earlier Madras High Court judgments (Regupathi, J.K.S. Manickam, S. Kannan, Venkatesh Babu) that permitted anticipatory bail in Section 138 cases were held per incuriam and not binding.
  • Consequently, the petition under Section 482 is not maintainable; the appropriate remedy for bail in a bailable offence is Section 478 of the Sanhita, to be addressed before the trial court.

Final Outcome

  • The petition is dismissed as not maintainable; anticipatory bail under Section 482 is denied.
  • The petitioner must seek bail, if required, under Section 478 of the Sanhita before the court where he is produced.
  • The pending petitions to recall or set aside the NBW will be considered separately when numbered and listed.

Topics: Anticipatory Bail, Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, Criminal Procedure