Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

SARATH KUMAR Vs The State Represented by The Inspector of Police

Sarath Kumar vs The State Represented by The Inspector of Police

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 12, 2026
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1415477

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CRL OP/824/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sarath Kumar

Respondent

The State Represented by The Inspector of Police

Excerpt

.....of 2025, seek anticipatory bail.2. the allegations against the petitioners is that on the date of allegedoccurrence, the petitioners scolded the village youth and administrators in mullipalayam, vellore and made obscene comments. when the defacto complainant and others intervened, the petitioners have assaulted them with knives and sticks, causing injuries and threatened with dire consequences. hence, the case.3. learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitionersare innocent persons, and they have been falsely implicated in this case by the respondent police and ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this court and prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.4. learned government advocate (criminal side) appearing for therespondent police reiterated the prosecution’s case and on instructions, submitted that the injured was discharged from hospital, no previous case is pending against the petitioners and the investigation in this case is still pending and opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.5. heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.6. considering the submissions made by the learned counselappearing on either side, the injured was discharged from hospital, the petitioners have no previous case pending against them and the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary, i am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.7. accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail inthe event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned judicial magistrate court no. iv, vellore on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of rs.15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate concerned and on further condition.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CRL OP No. 824 of 2026

1. Sarath Kumar

2.Munusamy 3.Sanjay Kumar Petitioner(s) Vs The State Represented by The Inspector of Police Vellore North Law and Order Police, Vellore District (Crime No.380 of 2025 Dated 18/12/2025) Respondent(s) PRAYER:This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest concerned in Crime No. 380/2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s): Mr. Mohammed Sayeed Allabakeah For Respondent(s): Ms.J.R.Archana, GA (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS Act 2023 in connection with the Cr.No.380 of 2025, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegations against the petitioners is that on the date of alleged

occurrence, the petitioners scolded the village youth and administrators in Mullipalayam, Vellore and made obscene comments. When the defacto complainant and others intervened, the petitioners have assaulted them with knives and sticks, causing injuries and threatened with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners

are innocent persons, and they have been falsely implicated in this case by the respondent police and ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the

respondent police reiterated the prosecution’s case and on instructions, submitted that the injured was discharged from hospital, no previous case is pending against the petitioners and the investigation in this case is still pending and opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel

appearing on either side, the injured was discharged from hospital, the petitioners have no previous case pending against them and the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in

the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No. IV, Vellore on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: [a] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am., for a period three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. [b] the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; [c] the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; [d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or

trial. [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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)AIR SCW 5560]. [f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.2023.

12-01-2026 jai To 1.The Inspector of Police Vellore North Police Station, Vellore District

2. The Judicial Magistrate Court No. IV, Vellore.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. K.RAJASEKAR J. jai CRL OP No. 824 of 2026 12-01-2026

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial