M.Vignesh Kumar v. The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17.11.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR M.Vignesh Kumar ... Petitioner -vsState Rep by, The Inspector of Police, K-10, Koyambedu Police Station, Chennai.

(Crime No.401 of 2025) ... Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.401 of 2025 pending investigation on the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.T.Marimuthu For Respondent :

Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) **********

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 30.09.2025, for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 311 of BNS @ 311, 61(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS, in Crime No.401 of 2025, on the file of the 1/4

respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that while the defacto complainant, while riding his two wheeler from Paris to Koyambedu carrying cash of Rs.45,68,000/- in a bag, the accused dashed against him and robbed the said amount at knife point. Hence, the case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is a college student and he is a friend of other accused. He would further submit that the petitioner was arrested and he is in judicial custody from 30.09.2025 and is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution's case and reported that the bail petitions of the co-accused were dismissed by this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.28891 & 28897 of 2025 and the money not yet recovered. He further submitted that 3 more accused were still absconding, total money recovered in this case only Rs.2,00,000/- remaining money to be recovered. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner. 2/4

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record including the First Information Report.

6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel on either side, that the property has not been recovered and some of the co-accused were still absconding and if the petitioner is granted bail he will hamper the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 17.11.2025 rna To 1.The Inspector of Police, K-10, Koyambedu Police Station, Chennai.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

3/4

rna 17.11.2025 4/4