Vinothkumar v. The State Represented by the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

27.07.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 137(2), 127(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS Act, r/w Section 25(1)(b), 25(1A) of Arms Act, 1959, in Crime No.161 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page2 of 5

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 27.07.2026, the petitioners forcibly abducted the de-facto complainant in a car by posing as police officers and confined him in a house at Kural Village. They demanded Rs.2,00,000/- allegedly received by him for purchasing a two-wheeler, along with the cost of a mobile phone, tablet and Rs.51,000/- cash, alleging that he had stolen the same from their shop. When he denied the allegation, they abused and assaulted him. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He further submitted that the petitioners are in judicial custody since 27.07.2026. Hence, he prayed for the grant of bail to the petitioners.

¶4Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that A1 to A3 have been in judicial custody since 27.07.2026. A4 and A6 have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 05.08.2026. A5 is absconding. He further submitted that no previous cases are pending against A1 to A3. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioners. Page3 of 5

¶5Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), and taking into consideration the period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioners and the nature of the allegations against them, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.:

¶7Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, Chinna Salem, and on further conditions that:- [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety lhip [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 petitioners shall report before the respondent police on everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders, without fail. [c] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [d] the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioners 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 petitioners thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 21-08-2026 nvi 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

1.The District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, Chinna Salem.

¶2The Inspector of Police, Keezhkuppam Police Station, Kallakurichi District.

3.The Superintendent, Villupuram Sub-Jail, Villupuram.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o23430oofo2026 N.RAMESH,oJ. nvi CRLoOPoNo.o23430oofo2026 21-08-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.RAMESH 1.Vinothkumar 2.Angamuthu 3.Mahendiran ...Petitioners/Accused (A1,A2 &A3) Vs State rep.by: The Inspector of Police, Keezhkuppam Police Station, Kallakurichi District. (Crime No.161 of 2026) ...Respondent/Complainant PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.161 of 2026, pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : M/s.S.Sengkodi For Respondent(s): Mr.M.M.I.Khaleel, Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)