Rajkumar Vs The State represented by, Inspector of police

Rajkumar vs The State represented by, Inspector of police

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Jan 29, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1418079

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1418079
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar
Decided On: Jan 29, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/1902/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajkumar

Respondent

The State represented by, Inspector of police

Excerpt

.....of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. for petitioner(s): mr.v.vijayakumar for respondent(s): ms.j.r.archana, ga (crl.side)[orderthe petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(b), 25, 29(1) of ndps act 1985 in connection with the cr. no.808 of 2025 of 2025, seeks page1 of 4 anticipatory bail.2. the case of the prosecution is that, based on secret information, therespondent police proceeded to the scene of the occurrence. upon noticing the police party, the accused persons attempted to flee but were successfully apprehended 3 persons and the petitioner escaped from the scene of occurrence. a subsequent search and seizure revealed that the petitioner, along with other accused persons, was in illegal possession of 3 kg 200 grams of ganja. consequently, the present case was registered against them.3. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner innocentperson, and he has been falsely implicated by the respondent police. he further submitted that petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and he is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this court. hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.4. the learned government advocate (crl. side), appearing for therespondent police, reiterated the prosecution's case and submitted that there are four accused involved in the present offence, and the petitioner has been arrayed as a4. she further clarified that although the petitioner was identified as 'sunil' in the fir, his actual name is raj kumar. it was contended that the alleged contraband was recovered from the accused persons and that the page2 of 4petitioner had initially fled from the scene of occurrence. pointing out that the petitioner has one previous case similar in nature pending against him, the government advocate vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail."5......

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-01-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Rajkumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State represented by, Inspector of police Crime No. 808 of 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 by the Respondent Police pending investigation in Crime No. 808 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police. For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Vijayakumar For Respondent(s): Ms.J.R.Archana, GA (Crl.side)[

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25, 29(1) of NDPS Act 1985 in connection with the Cr. No.808 of 2025 of 2025, seeks Page1 of 4 anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, based on secret information, the

respondent police proceeded to the scene of the occurrence. Upon noticing the police party, the accused persons attempted to flee but were successfully apprehended 3 persons and the petitioner escaped from the scene of occurrence. A subsequent search and seizure revealed that the petitioner, along with other accused persons, was in illegal possession of 3 kg 200 grams of ganja. Consequently, the present case was registered against them.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner innocent

person, and he has been falsely implicated by the respondent police. He further submitted that petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and he is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

respondent police, reiterated the prosecution's case and submitted that there are four accused involved in the present offence, and the petitioner has been arrayed as A4. She further clarified that although the petitioner was identified as 'Sunil' in the FIR, his actual name is Raj Kumar. It was contended that the alleged contraband was recovered from the accused persons and that the Page2 of 4

petitioner had initially fled from the scene of occurrence. Pointing out that the petitioner has one previous case similar in nature pending against him, the Government Advocate vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail."

5. Having considered the gravity of the offence, the petitioner's conduct in

escaping from the scene of occurrence, and his previous criminal antecedent involving a similar offence and it is a case of seizure of ganja, I am not inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail sought for by the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No JAI To

1. The Inspector of police

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. Page3 of 4

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

JAI Page4 of 4

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties Rajkumar vs The State represented by, Inspector of police Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar