Y.Anish v. State Represented By, Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Y.Anish Son of V.Yesaiah, U Block 12, Chinnamalai, Venkatapuram, Saidapet, Chennai-600015.

Tamil Nadu.

...Petitioner/A5

Vs State represented by, Inspector of Police, B-2 Thiruvallur Taluk Police Station Thiruvallur.

(Crime No. 64 of 2026)

...Respondent/

Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the Respondent Police in Crime No.64 of 2026, dated 08.03.2026 on the file of Respondent.

For Petitioner:

M/s.John Josh S For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioner/A5, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 123 and 278 of the Bharatiya Niyaya Sanhita (BNS) Act, 2023 r/w

Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act, in Crime No.64 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was involved in the supply of Tapentadol Hydrochloride Tablets 100 mg intended for sale to the general public and students. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A5 submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offense as alleged by the defacto complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and he is ready to cooperate for investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that no previous cases have been registered against the petitioner. However, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent.

6. It is the case of the recovery of 197 tablets of Tapentadol. However, the petitioner's counsel contended that the petitioner was not at all involved in this offence. Considering the totality of the circumstances and considering the allegation levelled against this petitioner, especially a case involving an addictive substance, this Court is of the considered 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 is dismissed. 18-03-2026 dk To

1. The Judicial Magistrate - I, Thiruvallur.

2. The Inspector of Police, B-2 Thiruvallur Taluk Police Station, Thiruvallur.

3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

DK CRL OP No. 7135 of 2026 18-03-2026