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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CRL OP NO. 366 of 2026 1.Vigneshwaran 2.Ajith 3.Manirathinam Petitioners Vs The State rep. by The Inspector of Police R-11, Ramapuram Police Station Chennai, Crime No. 319 of 2025.

Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest pending investigation in Crime No. 319 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.Veera Narayanan For Respondent : Ms.J.R. Archana Government Advocate (Criminal Side) ----

O R D E R

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 140(2), 351(2) of BNS, Act, 2023 in Crime No. 319 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

1/6

2.The allegation against the petitioners is that there was some money dispute between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant. On 31.10.2025, the petitioners threatened the de-facto complainant to repay the the loan amount borrowed by the de-facto complainant. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He also submits that the de-facto complainant borrowed money from the petitioners herein and when they asked him to repay the amount, a false case has been lodged against the petitioners. He further submits that they are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to furnish sufficient solvent sureties for their release. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submits that the petitioners have no previous case and nobody was injured in this case and he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 2/6

5. Heard the learned counsels and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the nature of offences, and the fact that nobody was injured in this case and there was money transactions between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant, and also considering the fact that the petitioners have no previous case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: 3/6

(a) If the petitioners fail to surrender before the concerned Magistrate, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

[b] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity;

[c] the petitioners shall report before the respondent Police on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

[d] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down 4/6

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[e] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 09.01.2026 MSM To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

MSM Crl.O.P.No. 366 of 2026 09.01.2026 6/6