Madras High CourtCRL OP/8027/2026dismissed

Rahul @ P.Srinivas v. State By, The Inspector Of Police,

2026-03-30Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Rahul @ P.Srinivas ..Petitioner Vs State by, The Inspector of Police, CCB -1, Vepery, Chennai.

Cr.No.49/2019.

..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS Act to grant enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest by the respondent police in Crime No. 49 of 2019.

For Petitioner:

Mr.G V Sridharan For Respondent:

Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC in Crime No.49 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a financial dispute

between the petitioner and one Valli. Hence, this case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-accused has already been released on bail and that the FIR is of the year 2019. The He further submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner has got one previous cases in Crime No.6 of 2022 of similar nature. Hence, he strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and from the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) it is demonstrably clear that the petitioner has misused the liberty granted by the Court and this Court is of a firm view that the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 30-03-2026 SHL To:

1. The Inspector of Police, CCB -1, Vepery, Chennai.

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

SHL 30-03-2026