Senthilkumar v. State Rep. By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Senthilkumar ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep. By its The Inspector of Police, CBCID-Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.

(Crime No.1 of 2026) ... Respondent 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 in Crime No.1 of 2026, on the file of the respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi For Respondent : Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 120(b), 170, 419, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC in Crime No.1 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. 1/4

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has illegally extracted money by giving fake RBI documents and cheated the de facto complainant. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence 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 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 case. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions

6. From the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, it is seen that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner involving cheating to the tune of more than Rs.5.5 Crores. The learned 2/4

Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would further submit that the petitioner has also involved in a previous criminal case. Taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations, the fact that the First Information Report came to be registered on 28.01.2026, and the antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Further, this Court finds that there is no change in circumstances subsequent to the dismissal of the earlier petition by order dated 30.03.2026.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 01.06.2026 kv To 1.The Judicial Magistrate-I, Krishnagiri.

2.The Inspector of Police, CBCID-Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 3/4

C.KUMARAPPAN.J.

kv Crl.M.P.No.8241 of 2026 in Crl.O.P.No.35706 of 2025 01.06.2026 4/4