Harindar Singh Alias Hardeep Singh v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Harindar Singh alias Hardeep Singh ..Petitioner Vs The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station, Chennai.

Crime No.115/2026 ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge this Petitioner/Accused herein anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.115 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent/Complainant i.e. on the file of The Inspector of Police, K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station, Chennai.

For Petitioner:

Mr.S. Kartik For Respondent:

Ms.R.S.Indira, Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 125, 272, 318(3), 336(2) of the Bharativa Nvava Sanhita, 2023 and Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act 1956 Subsequently, the FIR was altered to include Sections 123 and 61(2) of the Bharativa Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and

Section 15((3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The altered sections are 123, 125, 272, 318(3), 336(2), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 r/w. sec. 15(3) of Indian Medical Council Act. 1956, which corresponds to 328, 336, 270, 418, 465, 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in Crime No.115 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that during the inspection, it was allegedly found that hair transplant procedures in the clinic were being conducted by individuals without requisite medical qualifications. Furthermore, anaesthesia assistance was being administered by unqualified persons, and the clinic was not duly registered under the relevant statutory provisions. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has qualification in transplantation. In support of the same, he has submitted his certificate given by Institute of "Sant Namdev Institute of Technology (SNIT) for Diploma in Operations Theatre Technology (DOTT). He further submitted that co-accused have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail in Crl.OP.No.7674 of 2026 dated 26.03.2026 and in Crl.OP.No.9933 of 2026 dated 21.04.2026 and in respectively. 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 strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, considering the factual position that the occurrence took place on 10.02.2026 and upon the fact that coaccused have already been released on bail, at this length of time, custodial interrogation of the petitioners 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 V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, 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 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, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks 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.

18-06-2026 SHL To:

1. The V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai

2. The Inspector of Police K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station, Chennai.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

SHL 18-06-2026