Hariharan v. State Rep.By, the Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 143(3), 143(5) and 145 of BNS, 2023 along with Section 75 and 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Section Page2 of 6 9,16,17 and 18 of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation ) Act, 1986 in Crime No.145 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner and his father have been running a brick kiln in Anguchettypalayam village, in their land . It is the allegation against the petitioners that there were 51 bonded labours and around 26 children minors were involved in brick kiln works. 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 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 strongly oppose the bail application, submitted that the petitioner, who is arrayed as A2, along with his father (A1) were involved in trafficking of minors and adolescents and engaged them for work in his brick kiln.

5.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner, by relying upon the bail order granted by the learned Sessions Court to the petitioner's father on

19.06.2026, would contend that many of the minors were studying in schools Page3 of 6 and, therefore, it is not a case of forced labour of minors. It is further submitted that since the petitioner's father has already been taken into custody, examined, and enlarged on bail, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.

¶6Though the learned Government Advocate(crl.side) was not in a position to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the observations contained in the bail order, she has not raised any serious objection and would submit that the said minors have already been sent back to their respective residences.

¶7Considering the above factual position and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner's father/A1 has already been taken into custody and enlarged on bail on 19.06.2026, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner/A2 is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

¶8Accordingly, the petitioner/A2 is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Panruti, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:

(a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the Page4 of 6 date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) 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 identify proofs to ensure their identity;

(c) The petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e) If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 09-07-2026 JRS Page5 of 6 To

¶1The Judicial Magistrate-II, Panruti.

2.The Inspector of Police, Pudupettai Police Station, Cuddalore. Cr.No.145 of 2026.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o17278oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. JRS CRLoOPoNo.o17278oofo2026 09-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Hariharan S/o. Ramakrishnan, 752, Seshaiyar Nagar, Anguchettypalayam, Panruti, Cuddalore. ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Pudupettai Police Station, Cuddalore. Cr.No.145 of 2026. ..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Criminal Original is filed under Section 482 of BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent in Cr.No.145 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of The Inspector of Police, Pudupettai Police Station, Cuddalore. For Petitioner(s): Mr. D.Vasanth For Respondent(s): MS.R.S.INDIRA, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE)