Vinoth @ Vinoth Kumar v. State, Represented By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Vinoth @ Vinoth Kumar ... Petitioner Vs.

State, represented by The Inspector of Police Manali Police Station, Chennai District.

(Crime No.170 of 2026) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest concerned in Crime No.170 of 2026, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Manali Police Station, Chennai District. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Chandra Sekar For Respondent : Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 318(4) and 351(3) of BNS in Crime No.170 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

1/6

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with the other accused, received a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from the de facto complainant on 13.09.2024. It is alleged that, when the de facto complainant subsequently approached the petitioner seeking repayment of the said amount, he refused to return the same. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he 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 reiterated the prosecution case and vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

6. From the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and the materials available on record, it is seen that, according to the 2/6

prosecution, A1 and A2 had cheated the de facto complainant to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-. The present petitioner, who is arrayed as A3, has been implicated in the case on the ground that he is a friend of A1. It is the specific submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has nothing to do with the transaction alleged to have taken place between the de facto complainant and A1 and A2. However, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the petitioner had also played a role in the alleged cheating of a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. Further, it is seen that the dispute appears to arise out of a land transaction and the First Information Report came to be registered on 04.03.2026. Therefore, having regard to the nature of the allegations and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain 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 (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate 3/6

concerned, and on further conditions:

(a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;

(c) The petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of 30 days and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation; (d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e) If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

04.06.2026 kv 4/6

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur.

2.The Inspector of Police Manali Police Station, Chennai District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 5/6

C.KUMARAPPAN.J.

kv 04.06.2026 6/6