Yasin @ Yaseen v. The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Yasin @ Yaseen S/o Abdul Kadhar Fareed, No.4/126, Santhana Eswary Street, Sembakkam, Vellore District.

...Petitioner/Accused

Vs The State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Sathuvachari Police Station, Vellore District.

(Crime No.252 /2025)

...Respondent/

Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.252 of 2025 on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioner:

Mr.Deepak Kumar C For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioner/A3, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 3(1), 4(1), and 5(1)(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act in Crime No.252 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that petitioner/A3 joined hands with other accused involved in running the brothel house. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A3 submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution, and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and the petitioner is ready to cooperate for the 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 fifteen previous cases have been registered against the petitioner. Hence, 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. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A3 would submit that the allegation against this petitioner is that he is running a brothel home. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioner has got fifteen previous cases, which clearly demonstrates the conduct and character of this petitioner. Hence, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 09-04-2026 dk To

1. The Judicial Magistrate (Additional Mahila), Vellore.

2. The Inspector of Police, Sathuvachari Police Station, Vellore District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

dk CRL OP No.8926 of 2026 09-04-2026