CRL OP No. 19574 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 19574 of 2026 Paulkumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep by Inspector of Police, V-1, Villivakkam Police Station, Chennai-600 049. (Cr.No.481 of 2025) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 481 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, V-1, Villivakkam Police Station, Chennai. For Petitioner(s): Mr. G. Vinodh Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Palanivel, Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 318(4) & 316(2) of BNS, in Crime No.481 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 19574 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant, who is engaged in the business of operating self-drive rental cars under the name "Sun Self Driving Cars", entrusted his Toyota Innova Crysta bearing Registration No.TN 03 Y 3129 to the petitioner on 03.06.2025 for personal use. It is alleged that the petitioner failed to return the vehicle within the agreed period and subsequently informed the complainant that it had been stolen at Tirunelveli. However, upon verifying the GPS location, the complainant allegedly found that the vehicle had remained stationed at a particular place in Tirunelveli. On enquiry, it was allegedly revealed that the petitioner had pledged the vehicle to one Paul Paunraj without the knowledge or consent of the de facto complainant. Hence, the complaint. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 19574 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 5. From the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, it is seen that the vehicle has not yet been recovered and that the investigation is still in progress. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that it would be premature to consider the prayer for anticipatory bail at this stage. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 28-07-2026 KV To 1. The Metropolitan Magistrate No.XIII, Egmore, Chennai. 2. The Inspector of Police V-1, Villivakkam Police Station, Chennai-600 049. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 19574 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 C.KUMARAPPAN J. KV CRL OP No. 19574 of 2026 28-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis