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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14-05-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Prabhakaran S/o Kasi No.315/A,Arni Main Road Sathumadurai Vellore District Tamil Nadu.

..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Vellore Taluk P.S.

Vellore District.

(Cr.No.16 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) Prayer:

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, to enlarge the Petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 16 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Balaji T For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Balaji, GA (Crl.side)

ORDER

The petitioner / Accused, who apprehends arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 3(1), 3(2), 4(1), 5(1)(a) of ITP Act and 351(3) of BNS, in connection with the Cr. No.16 of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that based on the secret information regarding the immoral trafficking, the respondent police conducted a raid at JK Residency, Adukkamparai, and found a man and woman in Room No.303. Upon enquiry, the victim woman, namely Lakshmi, has stated that she was lured to Vellore on the false promise of employment and was thereafter threatened and compelled by the co-accused to engage prostitution. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is innocent and has nothing to do with the alleged offence. Further, he would submit that solely based on the confession of the co-accused, the petitioner was falsely implicated in the FIR and subsequently, the said coaccused was released on bail. He would also submit that the petitioner has no previous case. Hence, the petitioner may be released on anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that this is the 2nd anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner. Further, he would submit that based on the complaint received from the complainant, they registered the case in Cr. No.16 of 2026 against the petitioner, who is the manager of the lodge, for the offence under Section 3(1), 3(2), 4(1), 5(1)(a) of ITP Act and 351(3) of BNS and the case is under

investigation. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions on either side, considering the nature of offences, it appears that the petitioner's name was included in the FIR solely based on the confession of the co-accused, who was already released on bail. Even according to the prosecution, the petitioner is only Manager of the lodge, where the raid was conducted by the respondent-police, the fact that there is no previous case pending against this petitioner, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the Judicial Magistrate (Additional Mahila), Vellore, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

[a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent

police every Saturday for a period of 4 weeks and thereafter as and when required;

[b] the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; [c] the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.2023.

14-05-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order nsa/rst Note:

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this

Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

To:

1.The Judicial Magistrate (Additional Mahila), Vellore

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

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

P.DHANABAL J.

nsa/rst 14-05-2026