M.Vignesh Vs The State rep.by,

M.Vignesh vs The State rep.by,

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 18, 2026

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1429482

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1429482
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan
Decided On: Mar 18, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/5464/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M.Vignesh

Respondent

The State rep.by,

Excerpt

.....arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 420 and 506(i) of ipc in crime no.46 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.2. the case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant, who isthe senior manager of m/s. chennai mines, a partnership firm, alleged that the second respondent cheated the firm to the tune of rs.45,25,820/-. it is further alleged that, towards the outstanding amount, a cheque was issued, which was subsequently dishonoured. when the same was questioned, the accused, along with his associates, threatened the de facto complainant and the employees of the firm who had gone for collection. hence, the complaint, and the respondent police registered a case in crime no.46 of 2026.3. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that thepetitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. he further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this court and sought anticipatory bail for the petitioner.4. the learned government advocate (crl. side) appearing for therespondent police submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that he has not paid a sum of rs.45,25,820/- to the de facto complainant towards the supply of gravel sand. he further submitted that the occurrence took place on 04.10.2025 and the fir was registered on 14.02.2026.5. considering the above circumstances and also taking into accountthe nature of the allegation, this court is of the view that no custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. hence, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions.6. accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in theevent 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 no.i, tambaram, on.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.03.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN M.Vignesh ... Petitioner Vs. The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, (Crime No.46 of 2025). ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.46 of 2025 on the file of respondent Police.
For Petitioner : Mr.Bruno Cruz For Intervenor : Mr.B.Manoharan For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhileepan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.46 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant, who is

the Senior Manager of M/s. Chennai Mines, a partnership firm, alleged that the second respondent cheated the firm to the tune of Rs.45,25,820/-. It is further alleged that, towards the outstanding amount, a cheque was issued, which was subsequently dishonoured. When the same was questioned, the accused, along with his associates, threatened the de facto complainant and the employees of the firm who had gone for collection. Hence, the complaint, and the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.46 of 2026.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and sought anticipatory bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the

respondent police submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that he has not paid a sum of Rs.45,25,820/- to the de facto complainant towards the supply of gravel sand. He further submitted that the occurrence took place on 04.10.2025 and the FIR was registered on 14.02.2026.

5. Considering the above circumstances and also taking into account

the nature of the allegation, this Court is of the view that no custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner 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 No.I, Tambaram, 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 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.KUMARAPPAN, J.

(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. 18.03.2026 cda To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram. 2.The Inspector of Police, 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties M.Vignesh vs The State rep.by, Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan