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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN S.Sathish ..Petitioner Vs State represented by The Inspector of Police, Perundurai Police Station, Erode District.

(Crime No.187 of 2026) ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner on Anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.187 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner:

Mr. S.Mohanavadivelan For Respondent:

Ms.R.S.Indira Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioner 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 person allegedly intercepted the defacto complainant, forcible 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 for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that here is no specific overt act against the petitioner and that he is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police opposed the anticipatory bail to the petitioner stating that it is a case of a high-scale robbery, where the defacto complainant was forced to part with a huge amount.

5.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available. 6.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, the allegation relate to a serious offence involving extortion of a huge amount. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. 7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 08-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order VEDA To 1.The Inspector of Police, Perundurai Police Station, Erode District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

VEDA 08-06-2026