Vignesh 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

1. Vignesh S/o.Krishnamoorthy

2. Santhosh S/o.Rajini ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep by The Inspector of Police K.V.Kuppam Police Station, Vellore District (Crime No. 80 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime no. 80 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.M.Sathish Kumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Balaji Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioners who apprehend arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 296(b), 115(2) and 324(4) of BNSS, 2023 read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act (Section 447, 294, 323 and 427 of IPC), in connection with Crime No.80 of 2026 seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is there was a dispute between the defacto complainant and the petitioners. On the midnight of 08.04.2026, the petitioners had knocked the door of defacto complainant's house, when questioned, the petitioners had abused the defacto complainant in a filthy language. When the defacto complainant attempted to call her brother for help, the petitioners alleged to have broken the defacto complainant's phone and pushed her. Thereafter, the defacto complainant's brother had come to the scene of occurrence, the petitioners had assaulted them and escaped the scene. Hence the case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He submits that the 1st petitioner and the daughter of the defacto complainant had a love affair, which was objected by the defacto complainant and her family. He further submitted that the present complaint has been lodged against the petitioners owing to the aforesaid reason. He submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed anticipatory bail for the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and that there no previous case pending against the petitioners. He submitted that the petitioners had earlier

preferred anticipatory bail application before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.10350 of 2026, however, the same was dismissed on 27.04.2026. He further submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioners.

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

6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the nature of offences, and also the fact that the petitioners are having no previous case pending against them and the injured has been discharged from the hospital this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to the following 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 District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at K.V.Kuppam, Vellore District on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond each 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent police on every Saturday at 10.00 a.m. for a period of four weeks and thereafter as and

when required for interrogation;

[b] the petitioners 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; [c] the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

[d] the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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 BNSS, 2023.

14-05-2026 MKA/SHA 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 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, Madras High Court, Chennai.

P.DHANABAL J.

MKA/SHA CRL OP No. 13039 of 2026 14-05-2026