Venkatesan @ Kullan v. The State Rep by the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner, who was arrested under a P.T. warrant and remanded to judicial custody on 27.01.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 296(b), 232(1) and 351(2) of B.N.S. in Cr. No.20 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page2 of 5

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner threatened the defacto complainant and forced her to withdraw the complaint given by her against the petitioner in Cr. No.110 of 2025, which is pending on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ranipet in Spl. C.C. No.177 of 2025. Hence the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are known to each other and due to some misunderstanding, this false complaint has been given against the petitioner and the petitioner is under incarceration since 27.01.2026. He would also submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court and hence prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed to enlarge the petitioner on bail on the ground that the petitioner has already involved in another case under POCSO Act and he had threatened the victim to withdraw the complaint and investigation is still pending. Page3 of 5

¶5I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

¶6The learned Government Advocate strongly opposed to enlarge the petitioner on bail on the ground that the petitioner has already involved in another case registered under Section 5 of POCSO Act. However, after getting bail in that case, he has intimidated the witness and blackmailed her to withdraw the complaint in the said case and based on the complaint lodged by the victim, the petitioner was remanded in this case on 27.01.2026 and investigation is still pending. From the above submission, this Court can able to see that the enlargement of bail in the connected case, was misused by this petitioner by compelling the victim to withdraw the complaint. In view of the above factual position, this Court is of the firm view that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he will again intimidate the witness, thereby fair trial would be affected. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 24-03-2026 MJS Page4 of 5 Note:

¶1Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

¶2All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code. To

¶1The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶2The Inspector of Police, Arcot Taluk Police Station, Ranipet District. CRLoOPoNo.o7393oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. MJS CRLoOPoNo.o7393oofo2026 24-03-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Venkatesan @ Kullan S/o. Chinnappa, No.3/487, Mariyammal Koil Street, Krishnapuram, Arcot Taluk, Ranipet District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State represented by: The Inspector of Police Arcot Taluk Police Station, Ranipet District. Crime No.20 of 2026. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: The Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail as against the case pending on the file of the respondent police in Crime No.20/2026. For Petitioner(s): Mr. D.Thirumoorthy For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Criminal side)