Sathish v. The State Rep By Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. S.Sathish

2. S.Varun Balaji ..Petitioners Vs The State Rep by Inspector of Police, Perundurai Police Station, Erode District.

Crime No.187 of 2026 ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the case in Crime No.187 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners:

Mr.L.Manisha For Intervener Mr.M.Guru Prasad For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioners apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 126, 127(2), 140(1), 309 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No.187 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.02.2026 at about 10.30 p.m., the accused persons allegedly intercepted the defacto complainant, forcibly took him in a car and compelled him to part with money and it is alleged that a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- was paid to them. Based on the complaint, the respondent police registered the present case on 07.03.2026.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 25.02.2026 whereas the FIR was registered only on 07.03.2026, which according to him creates serious doubt regarding the prosecution case. He would further submit that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel also submitted that as against second petitioner/A2, the present application is not pressed since he has already been remanded to judicial custody on 14.03.2026. Therefore, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent opposed the anticipatory bail to the petitioners stating that it is a case of high-scale robbery where the defacto complainant was forced to part with a huge amount. It is further submitted that during investigation a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- has been recovered and the investigation is still at a preliminary stage.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor also strongly opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and adopted the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate.

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

7. From the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court is of the view that though the occurrence is said to have taken place on 25.02.2026 and the FIR was registered on 07.03.2026, it is the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- has already been recovered during the course of investigation. The allegations relate to a serious offence involving extortion of a huge amount and the investigation is still at the preliminary stage. In such circumstances, if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it may affect the course of investigation and the prosecution case.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 16-03-2026 NSL

To

1. Inspector of Police, Perundurai Police Station, Erode District.

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

3. The Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

NSL 16-03-2026