CRL OP No. 17231 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 17231 of 2026 Vignesh Perumal ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Re.by, The Inspector of Police, R6, Valasaravakkam Police Station, Chennai-600 087. Cr.No.426 of 2026. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023 to grant Anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the eent of his arrest in connection with Cr.No.426 of 2026 on the file of R6, Valsaravakkam Police Station for the alleged offences under sections 318(2) and 318(4) of the BNS, 2023 on such terms and conditions as this Honble Court. For Petitioner(s): M/S.Kumar V For Respondent(s): MR.N.PALANIVEL, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE) ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 318(2) and 318(4) of BNS, in Crime No.426 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 17231 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 2.The prosecution's case is that the petitioner/accused induced the de facto complainant to entrust her Innova Crysta car to him for temporary use. However, despite repeated demands, the petitioner/accused failed to return the vehicle and dishonestly misappropriated it. By doing so, the accused cheated the de facto complainant and caused her wrongful loss. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that a false complaint was lodged solely to harass the petitioner and to implicate them for statistical purposes, and that the FIR was registered purely for statistical targets. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4. As per the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent, the car is yet to be recovered. Therefore, considering these peculiar circumstances, and even though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner would co-operate with the investigation, it would be difficult to ascertain the whereabouts of the car unless the petitioner is taken into custody. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 17231 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 5. In view of these facts, circumstances, and the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), the requirement for custodial interrogation cannot be faulted. Hence, this application is dismissed. 06-07-2026 GBI To’ 1.The Inspector of Police, R6, Valasaravakkam Police Station, Chennai. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 17231 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 C.KUMARAPPAN, J. GBI CRL OP No. 17231 of 2026 06-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis