Sathish v. State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.28817 of 2025 Sathish ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep by The Inspector of Police, Shoolagiri Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

... Respondent (Cr.No.294 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge him on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.294 of 2025 on the file of the respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Bala Murugan For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 4, 14 16,17 of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and 1/4

Regulation) Act, 1986 in Cr.No.294 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is involved in the offence of bonded labour, and based on a complaint lodged by the father of one of the victims, a case was registered against him. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prayed that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that, during the inspection conducted by the team of officers, four persons were found engaged in a hotel run by the petitioner, and two children were engaged in grazing cattle. In total, six children were rescued in this case. He further submitted that the investigation is still in progress, and if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, there is a likelihood of his 2/4

engaging in similar activities. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity and nature of the offence alleged, and the fact that the investigation is still pending, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 24.10.2025 Vv To

1. The Judicial Magistrate-I, Hosur.

2.The Inspector of Police, Shoolagiri Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

3/4

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

Vv Crl.O.P.No.28817 of 2025 24.10.2025 4/4