ABINESH Vs The State Represented by The Inspector of Police

Abinesh vs The State Represented by The Inspector of Police

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Feb 02, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1420180

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/1420180
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar
Decided On: Feb 02, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/2239/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abinesh

Respondent

The State Represented by The Inspector of Police

Excerpt

.....5 for respondent(s): mr.a. gopinath, govt advocateorderthe petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.11.2025, for the offences punishable under sections 126(2), 296(b), 309(4), 311 and 351(3) of the bns 2023 in crime no.1073 of 2025, registered on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.2. the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused consumed liquor and in a intoxicated mood robbed a sum of rs.1,850/- from the defacto complainant at knife point. hence, this case.3. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that thepetitioner was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. he further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 25.11.2025. he further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this court and sought for bail to the petitioner. page2 of 54. the learned government advocate (criminal side) appearing for therespondent while opposing the bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and states that the petitioner has nineteen previous cases and the petitioner is a history sheeter. hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.5. considering the submissions made by both sides and the previous antecedents and the fact that the petitioner is a history sheeter, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.6. accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 02-02-2026 index: yes/nospeaking/non-speaking orderneutral citation: yes/no smn page3 of 5 to1. the inspector of police puzhal police station,chennai.2. the public prosecutor, high court, madras page4 of 5k.rajasekar, j.smn 02-02-2026 page5 of 5

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-02-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Abinesh S/o. Suresh, No.35, Ambedkar Street, Puzhal, Chennai. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Represented by The Inspector of Police Puzhal Police Station, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: This petition is filed under Section to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in Crime No.1073 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police and pass such further or other orders as this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): M/s.S.Vedavalli S. Ragu Page1 of 5 For Respondent(s): Mr.A. Gopinath, Govt Advocate

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.11.2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 309(4), 311 and 351(3) of the BNS 2023 in Crime No.1073 of 2025, registered on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused consumed liquor and in a intoxicated mood robbed a sum of Rs.1,850/- from the defacto complainant at knife point. Hence, this case.

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

petitioner was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 25.11.2025. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and sought for bail to the petitioner. Page2 of 5

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

respondent while opposing the bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and states that the petitioner has nineteen previous cases and the petitioner is a history sheeter. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the submissions made by both sides and the previous antecedents and the fact that the petitioner is a history sheeter, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 02-02-2026 Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No SMN Page3 of 5 To

1. The Inspector of Police Puzhal Police Station,Chennai.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras Page4 of 5

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

SMN 02-02-2026 Page5 of 5

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties Abinesh vs The State Represented by The Inspector of Police Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar