M Madhan v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN M Madhan ..Petitioner Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Inspector of Police, Kayar Police Station, Chegalpattu District.

(Crime No.129 of 2025) ..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of apprehending of arrest in Crime No.129 of 2025 on Inspector of Police, Kayar Police Station, Chengalpattu District. For Petitioner:

Mr.Muthamizh Selvakumar P For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 132, 123 and 278 of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.129 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that when the de facto complainant along with other police officials were at their regular patrol duty, intercepted one Praveen and found him with possession of 500 Nos of Tapentadol tablets. Upon enquiry, he confessed that he brought the said tablets from this petitioner. Hence, this case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that FIR was registered against the petitioner on 15.11.2025. Based on the confession given by the A1, the petitioner has been robbed in this case. He further submitted that A1 has already been enlarged on bail in Crl.OP.No.1944 of 2026 dated 29.01.2026. 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 opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner has got six previous cases, out of which, two are NDPS cases and three other cases are under 307 IPC. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only because of the pendency of those cases, he has been roped in this case and the petitioner has no role to play in the case in hand.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, though such submissions may weigh to some extent, this Court is not inclined to consider the bail application on the ground that this is the case of selling addictive substance of 500 tablets of Tapentadol. Apart from that, this petitioner has got six previous cases which clearly demonstrates that he has been misusing the liberty granted and he is repeating his conduct by involving in similar type of offences. Therefore, this Court is of a firm view that the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 02-04-2026 SHL To:

1. The Inspector of Police Inspector of Police, Kayar Police Station, Chegalpattu District.

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

SHL 02-04-2026