Skip to content
Try for free
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.
See full guide →

E.Akash Vs The State, Rep. by

E.Akash vs The State, Rep. by

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Jan 30, 2026
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1419174

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
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

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

Citation
Court
Chennai Orders High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CRL OP/2035/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

E.Akash

Respondent

The State, Rep. by

Excerpt

.....for respondent : m/s.j.r.archana government advocate (crl.side)orderthe petitioner, who apprehends arrest by the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 296(b), 118(1) and 351(3) of bns act, 2023 in crime no.521 of 2025 registered on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.2. the allegation against the petitioner is that he joined hands withother two accused attacked the defacto complainant and two others indiscriminately and caused injuries to them. hence, the case has been registered against the petitioner.3. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted thatdue to previous enmity, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. he further submitted that the majority of the offences are under section 181 of bns, and hence prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.4. the learned government advocate (crl.side) appearing for therespondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner is having 10 previous cases pending against him and that the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant using knife. hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.5. heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned government advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record.6. considering the nature of the allegations, the fact that the petitioner wielded a weapon and attacked the defacto complainant and his friend, and that the petitioner has 10 previous cases pending against him, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.7. accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. drl to1. the inspector of police, 2.the public prosecutor, high court, madras.k.rajasekar, j.drl

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR E.Akash ... Petitioner

Versus

The State rep by its, The Inspector of Police, (Crime No.521 of 2025) .. Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.521 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Dinesh For Respondent : M/s.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS Act, 2023 in Crime No.521 of 2025 registered on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he joined hands with

other two accused attacked the defacto complainant and two others indiscriminately and caused injuries to them. Hence, the case has been registered against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

due to previous enmity, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the majority of the offences are under Section 181 of BNS, and hence 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 is having 10 previous cases pending against him and that the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant using knife. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the nature of the allegations, the fact that the petitioner wielded a weapon and attacked the defacto complainant and his friend, and that the petitioner has 10 previous cases pending against him, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. drl To

1. The Inspector of Police, 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

drl

Continue Your Research

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties E.Akash vs The State, Rep. by Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales