Balamani v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Balamani ... Petitioner Vs.

The State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Panamarathupatty Police Station, Salem District.

(Crime No.80 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.80 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Dasarathan For Respondent : Mr. N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 363 of IPC and altered to Section 81 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in Crime No.80 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police seeks anticipatory bail.

1/4

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant, an MBBS student, delivered a male child on 14.09.2023, which was taken from her by the 1st petitioner along with A2 and A3, and subsequently through A3, illegally transferred to one Vimalan and Shanmugapriya. She was later informed by the accused that the child had died, and they refused to show the child to her. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and she has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that she is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submits that the petitioner has one previous case of similar nature pending against her. He further submits that if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he may abscond and commit similar offences in future as well. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 2/4

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.

6. From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), it is seen that the present case pertains to a serious offence involving child trafficking. It is further seen that the petitioner has got one previous cases of similar nature, which clearly demonstrates that whenever she was granted bail by the Courts, she has misused the liberty granted to her. In view of the same, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, she may be emboldened to indulge in similar offences in future without fear of law. Hence, taking into consideration of interest of the society at large, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 12.06.2026 kv To

1. The Inspector of Police, Panamarathupatty Police Station, Salem District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 3/4

C.KUMARAPPAN.J.

kv 12.06.2026 4/4