Pinjara Vittal Babu vs State Rep By The Inspector Of Police
2026 Latest Caselaw 1838 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1838 Mad
Judgement Date : 15 April, 2026

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Pinjara Vittal Babu vs State Rep By The Inspector Of Police on 15 April, 2026

                                                                             CRL OP No. 9263 of 2026


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                  DATED: 15-04-2026
                                                       CORAM
                                   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
                                                CRL OP No. 9263 of 2026

                Pinjara Vittal Babu
                                                                                     ..Petitioner
                                                          Vs
                State rep by
                The Inspector of Police
                G-2, Police Station,
                Periamet,
                Chennai-600003
                Crime No.48 of 2026
                                                                                   ..Respondent



                PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya
                Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
                No.48 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police, G-2, Periamet Police
                Station, Chennai.


                              For Petitioner:          Mr.V.Nithyanandam

                              For Respondent:          Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar,
                                                       Govt.Advocate (Crl Side)


                                                       ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

20.01.2026 for the alleged offence under Section 316(2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3)

and 340(2) of BNS Act (IPC 405/406, 420, 463/464, 468 and 471) in Crime

__________ Page1 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

No.48 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has borrowed a sum of

Rs.15 lakhs and failed to repay the same. Hence, this case.

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

innocent and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further

submitted that he is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be

imposed by this Court and he is ready to co-operate for investigation. Hence, he

prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the

petitioner has deceived the de facto complainant by receiving Rs.15 lakhs on the

ground of investing the same in Bit Coin and that the amount has not been

returned to the de facto complainant. However, he fairly submitted that the

petitioner has no previous cases and the investigation is almost completed.

However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the

learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

__________ Page2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering

the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that further

incarceration of the petitioner is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to

enlarge the petitioner on bail subject to certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his

executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand

only) with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned II

Metropolitan Magistrate at Egmore, Chennai, and on further conditions that:

[a] 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 the identity proofs to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the learned respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. and 05.30 p.m, for the period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with

__________ Page3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];