Vinoth Kumar v. The State Rep by the Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioners apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No.80 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail. Page2 of 4

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on 24.04.2026 at about 6.00 p.m., the petitioners abused the defacto complainant in filthy language, assaulted him with a cricket bat and a beer bottle, causing injuries, and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, this case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this is the second anticipatory bail petition and that the earlier bail petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners have one previous case against them. He further submitted that the petitioners are innocent and that they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that this is they are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and they are ready to co-operate for investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there are three accused in this case, with the petitioners herein arrayed as A2 and A3. He further submitted that while this Court, vide order dated 30.06.2026 in Crl.O.P. No. 16446 of 2026, had granted anticipatory bail to the first accused (A1) on the ground of having no criminal antecedents, the present petitioners have one previous case pending against them. Hence, she opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Page3 of 4

¶5I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration of the nature of the allegation against the petitioners and the fact that the petitioners have got one previous cases pending against them, the conduct of the petitioners in misusing the liberty by involving themselves in similar offence is also a ground against the petitioners in denying bail. Hence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 20-07-2026 DRL To

1.The Inspector of Police, Kilpennathur Police Station, Thiruvannamalai.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o19177oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. DRL CRLoOPoNo.o19177oofo2026 20-07-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1. Vinoth Kumar S/o.Mathyiyan, No.45 Vivekanandhar Theru, Karungalikuppam, Thiruvannamalai, Tamil nadu-604601. 2. Vijayakanth No.5, Vivekanadhar Theru, Karungalikuppam, Thiruvannamalai, Tamilnadu - 604 601. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Kilpennathur Police Station, Thiruvannamalai. Crime No.80 of 2026. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory Bail in the event of his arrest pending investigation in Crime No.80 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent. For Petitioner(s): Ms.Kousalya M For Respondent(s): MS.R.S.Indira, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)