M.Vijayakumar, v. State Rep by the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 3(1), 4(1) and 5(1)(a) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 in Crime No.463 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. Page2 of 4

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on 18.12.2024, while the Inspector of Police was on patrol along with her team found that some of the persons are illegally run the prostitution at Geetha Service Apartment, Vellore. Accordingly, they were conducted a raid in the building and found that A1 to A4 are conducting prostitution by using three ladies. Hence the case.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this is the fourth anticipatory bail petition. He further submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the building and on 14.02.2023, he leased out the apartment to one Niruban Vijay for a period of three years. However, without the knowledge of the petitioner, the accused persons involved themselves in the aforementioned illegal activities. He further submitted that the petitioner was implicated in this case for the mere reason that he is the owner of the building; except for that, there is no specific overt act alleged against him. Further, the petitioner runs several businesses in a legal manner and there is no necessity for him to earn money from the alleged illegal activities. Therefore, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted on 18.12.2024, while the Inspector of Police was on patrol along with her team found that some of the persons are illegally run the prostitution at Geetha Service Apartment, Vellore. Accordingly, they were Page3 of 4 conducted a raid in the building and found that A1 to A4 are conducting prostitution by using three ladies. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

¶6Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and noting the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides that this is the fourth anticipatory bail application and a perusal of the earlier order dated 01.04.2026 in Crl.O.P.No.8104 of 2026 shows that this Court has already narrated the incident. Furthermore, the petitioner has one previous case of a similar nature, and as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), there is no change in circumstances. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 02-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order NSL Page4 of 4

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. NSL To

¶1The Inspector of Police, Sathuvachari Police Station, Vellore District.

¶2The Judicial Magistrate – V, Vellore.

¶3The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 02-06-2026

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN M.Vijayakumar ..Petitioner Vs State rep by. The Inspector of Police, Sathuvachari Police Station, Vellore District. (Crime No.463 of 2024). ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in event of his arrest in Crime No.463 of 2024 pending investigation on the file of Respondent Police. For Petitioner: Mr.Balamanikandan Ganesan For Respondent: Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.Side)