Vignesh v. The State Rep. by

ORDER The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

19.03.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 125(a), 126(2), 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 r/w Section 4 of the TamilNadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, in Crime No.92 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page2 of 5

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found in an intoxicated condition and while riding a motorcycle in a public place, allegedly misbehaved with a woman and caused annoyance to the general public. Hence the case.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are false and exaggerated and that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the case has been foisted against the petitioner due to misunderstanding. The learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 19.03.2026. At this juncture, the learned counsel further submitted that the previous case referred to by the prosecution was also registered on the very same day.

¶4The learned Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that this is a case relating to harassment of a woman and that according to the prosecution, the petitioner while under intoxication, misbehaved with the defacto complainant. It is further submitted that one previous case is pending against the petitioner.

¶5I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. Page3 of 5

¶6From the submission of the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that though the allegation relates to harassment of a woman and one previous case is stated to be pending, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 19.03.2026. Taking into consideration the period of incarceration and the fact that the previous case was also registered on the same day, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.

¶7Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and subject to the following conditions: [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of 30 days and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; Page4 of 5 [e] on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283]; [f] if the petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 05-06-2026 NSL 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 learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet.

¶2The Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶3The Inspector of Police, E-3, Police Station, Teynampet, Chennai.

¶4The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o14208oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. NSL CRLoOPoNo.o14208oofo2026 05-06-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Vignesh ..Petitioner Vs The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, E-3, Police Station, Teynampet, Chennai. Crime No.92/2026. ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Crime No.92 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner: Mr.B.Meganathan For Respondent: Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu (Criminal Side)