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.

RAMKUMAR Vs State Represented by The Inspector of Police

Ramkumar vs State Represented by The Inspector of Police

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 18, 2026
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1425269

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/4009/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramkumar

Respondent

State Represented by The Inspector of Police

Excerpt

.....115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 351(3) of bns in cr.no.12 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.2. the case of the prosecution is that there was a rivalry between thetwo groups, the petitioner herein had abused and assaulted the defacto complainant with knife and caused injuries to him, which led to the registration of the case and based on the same, the petitioner was arrested. hence, the present petition has been filed seeking bail.3. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted thatthere is rivalry between the two groups, consequent to which, two complaints were lodged and the case was registered in two crime numbers. he further submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 09.01.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with the investigation and also ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this court. hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.4. the learned government advocate (crl.side) appearing for therespondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the it is case and case and counter, the injured has been discharged from the hospital, the petitioner is having seven previous case and investigation in this case is pending. hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.5. heard both sides and perused the records and other connected materials.6. considering the nature of allegations, the fact that it is case andcounter case and the injured has been discharged from the hospital. though seven previous cases have been reported against the petitioner and investigation in this case is pending i am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.7. accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on hisexecuting a bond for a sum of rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the judicial magistrate, sriperumpudur and on further conditions that: [a] the sureties shall affix.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.4009 of 2026 Ram Kumar ... Petitioner Vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police, Manimangalam Police Station, Kancheepuram District. ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner herein on bail in connection with Cr.No.12 of 2026 on the file of the respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Raj For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.01.2026, for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 351(3) of BNS in Cr.No.12 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a rivalry between the

two groups, the petitioner herein had abused and assaulted the defacto complainant with knife and caused injuries to him, which led to the registration of the case and based on the same, the petitioner was arrested. Hence, the present petition has been filed seeking bail.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

there is rivalry between the two groups, consequent to which, two complaints were lodged and the case was registered in two crime numbers. He further submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 09.01.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with the investigation and also ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

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

respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the it is case and case and counter, the injured has been discharged from the hospital, the petitioner is having seven previous case and investigation in this case is pending. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the records and other connected materials.

6. Considering the nature of allegations, the fact that it is case and

counter case and the injured has been discharged from the hospital. Though seven previous cases have been reported against the petitioner and investigation in this case is pending I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

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

executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumpudur 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 daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[c] the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; [d] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de facto complainant and witnesses; [e] the petitioner to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard; [f] 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];

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 18.02.2026 Vv 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 Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumpudur

2. The Inspector of Police, Manimangalam Police Station, Kancheepuram District.

3. The Central Prison, Puzhal-II 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

Vv Crl.O.P.No4009 of 2026 18.02.2026

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial