M.ESAKKIMUTHU Vs State represented by,

M.Esakkimuthu vs State represented by,

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Jan 30, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1418459

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/1418459
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar
Decided On: Jan 30, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/2171/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M.Esakkimuthu

Respondent

State represented by,

Excerpt

.....district. for petitioner : mr. b. gopalakrishnan for respondent : mr. a. gopinath government advocate (criminal side) ******orderthe petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 30.09.2025 based on execution of non-bailable warrant issued by the learned principal assistant sessions court, kancheepuram for the offence punishable under sections 394, 397 and 511 of ipc pending trial in s.c.no.51 of 2018, seeks bail. the earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this court, vide order dated 24.10.2025 in crl.o.p.no.28840 of 2025 for the following reasons: “5. considering the fact that the petitioner has absconded for nearly 2.5 years and now only the trial is progressing after securing this petitioner and he is also having 11 previous cases, if the bail granted to the petitioner, there is possibility of bail jump. hence, i am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.”2. heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned government advocate (crl. side) appearing for the respondent.3. considering the fact that the petitioner has bad antecedents, andtaking into account that this is the successive bail petition filed by the petitioner without any change in circumstances after dismissal of the earlier bail petition in crl.o.p.no.28840 of 2025, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.4. accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. stn to1. the principal assistant sessions judge, kancheepuram.2. the inspector of police, (crime no.767 of 2010)3. the public prosecutor, high court of madras.k. rajasekar, j.stn

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR M. Esakkimuthu ... Petitioner/ Accused Vs. The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, (Crime No.767 of 2010) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending trial in S.C.No.51 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Kancheepuram District. For Petitioner : Mr. B. Gopalakrishnan For Respondent : Mr. A. Gopinath Government Advocate (Criminal Side) ******

ORDER

The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 30.09.2025 based on execution of Non-Bailable Warrant issued by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Kancheepuram for the offence punishable under Sections 394, 397 and 511 of IPC pending trial in S.C.No.51 of 2018, seeks bail. The earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 24.10.2025 in Crl.O.P.No.28840 of 2025 for the following reasons: “5. Considering the fact that the petitioner has absconded for nearly 2.5 years and now only the trial is progressing after securing this petitioner and he is also having 11 previous cases, if the bail granted to the petitioner, there is possibility of bail jump. Hence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.”

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.

3. Considering the fact that the petitioner has bad antecedents, and

taking into account that this is the successive bail petition filed by the petitioner without any change in circumstances after dismissal of the earlier bail petition in Crl.O.P.No.28840 of 2025, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. stn To

1. The Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram.

2. The Inspector of Police, (Crime No.767 of 2010)

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

stn

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties M.Esakkimuthu vs State represented by, Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar