CRL OP No. 7099 of 2025 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 7099 of 2025 Vinoth Kumar S/o.Chinnathambi, Admin Executive, Agni Group Of Companies, No.76, North Mada Street, Maylapore, Chennai. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police, E-1 Police Station, Mylapore - 600 004. (Crime No.123 Of 2024) 2. Ulaganathan S/o.Rajendran, No.310, Damodharan, Nagarullai Nagar, Vyasarpadi, Chennai-600 039. 3. Vickram @ Vickraman S/o.Mahalingam, No.115B, Kalyanapuram, 2nd Street, Vyasarpadi, Chennai-600 039. ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 (3) r/w 528 of BNSS, praying to cancel the statutory bail in Crl.M.P.No.12326 of 2024 dated 26.07.2024 in Crime No.123 of 2024 granted by XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7099 of 2025 __________ Page2 of 6 For Petitioner(s): Ms.Sukanya for Mr.Ashwinkumar A. For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R1 No Appearance for R2 & R3 ******* ORDER This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to to cancel the statutory bail in Crl.M.P.No.12326 of 2024 dated 26.07.2024 in Crime No.123 of 2024 granted by XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Trial Court has granted bail to the respondents 2 & 3 viz., Ulaganathan and Vickram @ Vickraman vide order dated 26.07.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.12326 of 2024 with certain conditions. The learned counsel would further contend that as per the bail order, the respondents 2 & 3 have to sign before the respondent police daily at 8.00.A.M and 5.00.P.M and that they have not at signed before the respondent police. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7099 of 2025 __________ Page3 of 6 4.However, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the respondents 2 & 3 have signed only 14 days 21.08.2024 and 14.09.2024 and they have not even moved any application for relaxation or modification. 5.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would invite the attention of this Court about the order of this Court dated 20.01.2026, wherein, this Court has cancelled the bail as against Ulaganathan and no order has been passed as against Vickram @ Vickraman on account of non servicing of notice. In this regard, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the order dated 20.01.2026 “This petition is filed to cancel the statutory bail granted to the respondents 2 and 3 in Crl.M.P.No.12326 of 2024 dated 26.07.2024 in Crime No.123 of 2024 granted by XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 2. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein submitted that it is case of robbery and the accused/second and third respondents herein joined hands with other accused and robbed a sum of Rs.1.5 crores and immediately F.I.R was registered and totally 11 persons were arrested including the accused/second and third respondent in all the petitions and all of them have confined in prison and they have filed a bail petition before the concerned Magistrate and bail was also granted to them with a condition that they shall report before https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7099 of 2025 __________ Page4 of 6 the respondent police every day until further orders. 2. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that the respondents 2 and 3 are not complying with the conditions regularly. 3. I have gone through order passed by the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate and one of the condition is that the accused/second and third respondent shall report before the police every day until further orders. Since the amount involved is nearly about 1.5 crores only 40.91 lakhs alone was recovered and since it is a clear violation of the bail condition granted by the Magistrate Court I am of the view that it would be suffice to cancel the bail granted to the second and third respondent/ accused in the above Criminal Original Petition. 4. Hence, the bail granted to the second respondent in Crl.M.P.No.12326 of 2024 dated 26.07.2024 stands cancelled. Accordingly this petition is ordered for the second respondent. It is seen from records that the notice was not sent to the third respondent. Hence notice to the third respondent returnable by 04.02.2026.” 6.Now, notice to the 3rd respondent was also served and his name is printed in the cause list. Despite the name is printed in the cause list, no one has appeared on behalf of the 3rd respondent. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7099 of 2025 __________ Page5 of 6 7.Considering the fact that he has not complied with the condition, the bail as against the 3rd respondent is cancelled. 8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. 22-07-2026 KMI To 1.The Inspector of Police, E1 Police Station, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. 2.The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7099 of 2025 __________ Page6 of 6 C.KUMARAPPAN, J. KMI CRL OP No. 7099 of 2025 22-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis