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.

V.P.Senthilkumar Vs State represented by The Inspector of Police,

V.P.Senthilkumar vs State represented by The Inspector of Police,

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 12, 2026
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1420685

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/3390/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

V.P.Senthilkumar

Respondent

State represented by The Inspector of Police,

Excerpt

.....crime no.16 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.2. the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner herein isworking in a government center for the students who are pursuing various course, in which defacto complainant is a temporary staff and the petitioner has continuously threatened her with dire consequence. hence, the case.3. the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein has also lodged a counter complaint and it is a dispute regarding running the office premises and there is no serious injuries caused to any person.4. the learned government advocate (crl. side) reiterated the prosecution case and confirmed the fact that counter complaint has been registered against the defacto complainant and the investigation is pending.5. considering the nature of allegation and the fact that there is acounter complaint registered against the defacto complainant, no previous case reported against the petitioner, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.6. accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in theevent of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned judicial magistrate no.iii, salem, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate concerned, and on further condition that:[a] if the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned magistrate within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled; [b] the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship [judicial form no.46 annexed to 'the criminal rules of practice, 2019']. the learned magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR V.P.Senthilkumar ... Petitioner/A2 Vs. The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, Hesthampatty Police Station, Salem District. Crime No.16 of 2026 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.16 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Pradeep For Respondent : Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner herein apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 351(2) of BNS read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 in Crime No.16 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner herein is

working in a Government Center for the students who are pursuing various course, in which defacto complainant is a temporary staff and the petitioner has continuously threatened her with dire consequence. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein has also lodged a counter complaint and it is a dispute regarding running the office premises and there is no serious injuries caused to any person.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reiterated the prosecution case and confirmed the fact that counter complaint has been registered against the defacto complainant and the investigation is pending.

5. Considering the nature of allegation and the fact that there is a

counter complaint registered against the defacto complainant, no previous case reported against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the

event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition that:

[a] if the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled; [b] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30.a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[d] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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)13 SCC 283];

[e] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 12.02.2026 sma To

1. Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem. 2.The Inspector of Police, Hesthampatty Police Station, Salem District. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

sma 12.02.2026

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial