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.

SUGUMAR Vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

Sugumar vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 20, 2026
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1424893

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/4281/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sugumar

Respondent

The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

Excerpt

.....115(2), 125, 309(4), 311 and 351(3) of bns in crime no.50 of 2026, registered on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2.the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused waylaid and demanded money from the defacto complainant at knife point and robbed a sum of rs.4,000/- from him. it is alleged that the petitioner and other accused have attacked the defacto complainant and caused injuries to him. hence the case. 3.this court has earlier dismissed the bail application of the petitioner in crl.o.p.no.2658 of 2026, dated 05.02.2026, after considering the merits of the case on the following reasons:“5. considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and the previous antecedents of the petitioner, if the petitioner is released on bail, he will indulge in tampering of evidence. hence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.6.accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed.” 4.the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he is in judicial custody from 13.01.2026. he further submitted that the petitioner is a student and he is continuing his studies and he is ready to co- operate with the investigation and abide by any other stringent conditions that may be imposed by this court. hence, prays to grant bail. 5.though it is stated by the learned government advocate (crl.side) for the respondent police that there is no change in circumstances, considering the fact that the petitioner is a student and also considering the period of incarceration, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions.6. accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on hisexecuting 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 district munsif cum.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP NO.4281 of 2026 Sugumar ... Petitioner/ Accused Vs The State rep by, The Inspector of Police, M-3, Puzhal Police Station, Chennai (Crime No.50 of 2026) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to grant bail to the petitioner/accused in Crime No.50 of 2026 on the file of the respondent Police, M-3, Puzhal Police Station,Chennai. For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. Muthukumar For Respondent(s) : Dr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.01.2026 for the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 296(b), 118(1), 115(2), 125, 309(4), 311 and 351(3) of BNS in Crime No.50 of 2026, registered on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused waylaid and demanded money from the defacto complainant at knife point and robbed a sum of Rs.4,000/- from him. It is alleged that the petitioner and other accused have attacked the defacto complainant and caused injuries to him. Hence the case. 3.This Court has earlier dismissed the bail application of the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.2658 of 2026, dated 05.02.2026, after considering the merits of the case on the following reasons:

“5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and the previous antecedents of the petitioner, if the petitioner is released on bail, he will indulge in tampering of evidence. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6.Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed.” 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he is in judicial custody from 13.01.2026. He further submitted that the petitioner is a student and he is continuing his studies and he is ready to co- operate with the investigation and abide by any other stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prays to grant bail. 5.Though it is stated by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent police that there is no change in circumstances, considering the fact that the petitioner is a student and also considering the period of incarceration, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions.

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

executing 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 District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Madhavaram, and on further conditions that: [a] 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;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation; [c] 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]; [d] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered

under Section 269 of B.N.S. 20.02.2026 gbi 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 Inspector of Police, M-3, Puzhal Police Station, Chennai 2.The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Madhavaram. 3.The Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

gbi CRL OP NO.4281 of 2026 20.02.2026

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial