Sathish v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Sathish S/o Selvaraj, 1/305, Sakthi Nagar 1st street, Boyampalayam, Neripperichal, Tiruppur-600001.

..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Bungalapudur Police Station, Erode.

(Crime No.255/2025) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on Bail in the event of arrest in the Crime No. 255 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police and pass such further other order or orders, as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render Justice.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr. Saravanan A For Respondent(s):

MR.P.DHILEEPAN, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL SIDE)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 179 and 180 of BNS Act, in Crime No.255 of 2025 on the file of the

respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused was found in possession of 684 counterfeit notes of Rs.500/- denomination. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the co-accused A1 and A2 have already been released on bail and that the petitioner is not a named accused in the FIR, but has been implicated based on the confession of the arrested accused. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner was involved in circulating counterfeit currency. He further submitted that at the time of recovery, 684 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination was seized. He further submitted that the petitioner has three previous cases, out of which, one case is under the NDPS Act. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the

learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.

6. Considering the huge quantity of counterfeit currency seized and the fact that the petitioner has three previous cases, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

15-04-2026 DRL To 1.The Inspector of Police Bungalapudur Police Station, Erode.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

DRL 15-04-2026