Vinoth Kumar v. State Rep by the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 310(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.109 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant lodged a Page2 of 4 complaint on 02.05.2026 stating that on 01.05.2026, his brother was attacked by Accused Nos. 1 and 2 along with four other accused persons due to a parking issue in front of UNICK juice shop. It is alleged that the accused persons threatened him with a knife and snatched a 3 sovereign gold chain from him. When he tried to escape they chased him in a red colour car bearing registration NO. TN 01 BE 4140 (CRITA), attached him and threatened him with dire consequences. The injured reached his house and was admitted to Hospital. Hence, a case has been registered.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the co accused released on bail and he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case, and submitted that the property not yet recovered. Therefore the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to find out the whereabouts of the missing jewellery. Hence she opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶5Considering the serious allegations levelled against this petitioner, though the co-accused have been granted bail on 09.06.2026, this Court is of the view that the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that the Page3 of 4 custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to ascertain the whereabouts of the missing jewels cannot be found fault with. In such circumstances, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and the requirement of further investigation, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶6Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 08-07-2026 JRS To

¶1The Inspector of Police E-3, Sadras Police Station, Chengalpattu District. Crime No. 109 of 2026

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o17450oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. JRS CRLoOPoNo.o17450oofo2026 08-07-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Vinoth Kumar S/o Chandirasekar, NO. 7/14, Pazhandiyamman Kovil Street, 34, Eagathur, Padur,Chengalpattu. ..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep by The Inspector of Police E-3, Sadras Police Station, Chengalpattu District. Crime No. 109 of 2026. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest by the Respondent in the case pending investigation in Crime No.109 of 2026, on the file Respondent Police . For Petitioner(s): Mr. C.Sugumar For Respondent(s): MS.R.S.INDIRA, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE)