SENTHILKUMAR Vs The State Rep.by. The Inspector of Police,

Senthilkumar vs The State Rep.by. The Inspector of Police,

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 12, 2026

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1423392

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/1423392
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar
Decided On: Feb 12, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/3385/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Senthilkumar

Respondent

The State Rep.by. The Inspector of Police,

Excerpt

.....deceased, due to which the deceased committed suicide by hanging. hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.5. heard both sides and perused the materials available on record including the first information report.6. considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, considering the periodof his incarceration and the nature of offence and the petitioners are in-laws of the deceased, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.7. accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on hisexecuting a bond for a sum of rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) each with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned additional mahila court, perambalur , and on further conditions that: [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the magistrate may obtain a copy of their aadhar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.[c] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [d] the petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned magistrate/trial court is entitled to take appropriate actionagainst the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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)air scw 6300]; [f] if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh fir can be registered under section 269 b.n.s.12.02.2026 smn note:1. registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the official website of this court.2. all concerned to.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12.02.2026

CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.3385 of 2026

1. Senthilkumar

2. Makeshwari ... Petitioners

-vs- State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Kunnam Police Station, Perambalur District (Crime No.35 of 2026) ... Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.35 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, pending investigation. For Petitioners : Mr.R. Prabakar For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.01.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections 194 of BNSS @ 296(B) and 108 of BNS in Crime No.35 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that these petitioners are family members of A1 in this case. A1 and the deceased were lovers and they are in relationship

for the past 4 years and marriage date was also fixed on 23.11.2025. It is alleged that these petitioners have demanded money from the deceased family and also abused them, due to which marriage was postponed, as a result of which the deceased committed suicide by hanging on 19.01.2025. Hence the case.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there was no demand of money and only due to difference of opinion between the deceased and A1 the marriage was postponed and the petitioners are in judicial custody from 29.12.2025. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation and ready to abide by any other stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioners. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioners who are the family members of A1 have demanded money from the deceased, due to which the deceased committed suicide by hanging. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record including the First Information Report.

6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, considering the period

of his incarceration and the nature of offence and the petitioners are in-laws of the deceased, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on his

executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Perambalur , and on further conditions that: [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

[c] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [d] the petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action

against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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)AIR SCW 6300]; [f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

12.02.2026 smn Note:

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

2. All concerned to act on this order being

uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code. To 1.The Additional Mahila Court, Perambalur 2.TheInspector of Police, Kunnam Police Station, Perambalur District 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

smn Crl.O.P.No.3385 of 2026 12.02.2026

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties Senthilkumar vs The State Rep.by. The Inspector of Police, Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar