Vignesh v. The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1.Vignesh 2.Santhosh ... Petitioners Vs.

The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, K.V.Kuppam Police Station, Vellore District.

Crime No.80 of 2026 ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioners' anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.80 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.M.Sathish Kumar For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhileepan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioners were apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 296(b), 115(2) and 1/4

324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Act, r/w Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act [corresponding Sections 447, 294, 323 and 427 of IPC] in Crime No.80 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.04.2026 at midnight, the petitioners trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant, abused her in filthy language, damaged her mobile phone, and on arrival of her brothers, assaulted them and fled the scene. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and that they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent police submitted that the petitioners had unlawfully entered the house of the de facto complainant and created a disturbance. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

2/4

5. From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), this Court is of the firm view that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners have serious societal impact. Hence enlarging the petitioners on anticipatory bail at this stage would affect the moral fiber of society at large. In such view of the position, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 27.04.2026 cda To 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, K.V.Kuppam, Vellore District.

2.The Inspector of Police, K.V.Kuppam Police Station, Vellore District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3/4

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

cda 27.04.2026 4/4