CRL OP No. 16178 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 16178 of 2026 K.Chinnakannan ..Petitioner Vs The State, represented by The Inspector of Police, Omerabad Police Station, Tirupathur District. [Crime No.211 of 2026] ..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to enlarge the petitioner on Anticipatory bail in the event of arrest by the respondent police in Crime No.211 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Omberabad Police Station, Tirupattur District and pass such further or other orders. For Petitioner: Mr.Pachaiyappan S For Respondent: Ms.R.S.Indira Government Advocate (Criminal Side) ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 16, 17, 18 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act (BLS) and offence under Section 79 of Juvenile Justice Act. (JJ Act) and offence under Section 14 of Child Labour Act, in Crime No.211 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 16178 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner operates a small-scale brick kiln on his own land, wherein his family members and close relatives are engaged as workers. The de facto complainant approached the petitioner seeking employment at the said brick kiln and was subsequently employed on a weekly wage basis. However, the de facto complainant has now levelled false allegations against the petitioner, claiming that they were treated as bonded labourers and that child labour was being utilized at the facility. On the strength of these allegations, the present complaint has been registered. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he is no way connected with the offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that he petitioner has no bad antecedents. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the case of the prosecution and submitted that the petitioner has got no bad antecedents. However, in view of the serious nature of allegation, she strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 16178 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 5. I have given anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned Counsel on either side and perused the records available. 6. Considering the serious nature of the child trafficking allegations, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner solely because he has no criminal antecedents would normalize a highly severe offense. If human trafficking is dealt with lightly, it will lead to grave adverse societal consequences. Therefore, given the gravity of the offense and its potential repercussions, the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 29-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No VEDA To 1.The Inspector of Police, Omerabad Police Station, Tirupathur District. 2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 16178 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 C.KUMARAPPAN, J. VEDA CRL OP No. 16178 of 2026 29-06-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis