K Vignesh v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.722 of 2026 K.Vignesh ... Petitioner Vs.

State Rep by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, ( AWPS) Perambalur ... Respondent (Crime No.60 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the Crime No.60 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.Suresh Sakthi Murugan For Respondent : Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 85, 75 and 351(2) of BNS, in Crime No. 60 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant and he 1/4

harassed her by demanding more gold jewels and also assaulted her brutally, leading to lodging of a complaint and registration of an FIR.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case and also the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition imposed by this court and hence he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Earlier this court has dismissed the bail petition of the petitioner in Crl.OP.No.33472 of 2025 vide order dated 11.12.2025 on the following ground:

"6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side); the allegations levelled in the First Information Report, this Court finds that the first petitioner/husband had allegedly subjected the defacto complainant to severe physical assault and various forms of harassment. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner. Accordingly, 2/4

this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed insofar as the first petitioner is concerned. "

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, and the submissions made by learned counsels on either side, and since there is no change in circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 12.01.2026 To

1. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, ( AWPS) Perambalur 2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

3/4

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

gv Crl.O.P.No.722 of 2026 12.01.2026 4/4