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.

Sanjay Vs The State Represented by Inspector of Police

Sanjay vs The State Represented by Inspector of Police

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 18, 2026
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1425361

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/3947/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sanjay

Respondent

The State Represented by Inspector of Police

Excerpt

.....in crime no.37 of 2026 registered on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.2. the allegation against the petitioner is that he joined hands withother accused, under the influence of alcohol allegedly abused and assaulted the defacto complainant with wooden log, thereby causing injuries to him. hence, a case has been registered against the petitioner.3. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted thatthe allegations are false and has been falsely implicated in this case. he further submitted that he is ready to co-operate with the investigation. hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.4. the learned government advocate (crl.side) appearing for therespondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the injured was treated as out patient and that the petitioner has no previous case pending against him. hence, she opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.5. heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned government advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record.6. considering the nature of the allegations, the fact that the injuredwas discharged from the hospital and that the petitioner has no bad antecedents, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.7. accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen(15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the learnedxv metropolitan magistrate, george town, chennai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of rs.15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only), with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate concerned and on further condition.....

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.3947 of 2026 Sanjay ... Petitioner

Versus

The State rep by its, The Inspector of Police, H-6 RK Nagar Police Station, Chennai. (Crime No.37 of 2026) .. Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.37 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vijayakumar For Respondent : Mr.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest by the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.37 of 2026 registered on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he joined hands with

other accused, under the influence of alcohol allegedly abused and assaulted the defacto complainant with wooden log, thereby causing injuries to him. Hence, a case has been registered against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

the allegations are false and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the injured was treated as out patient and that the petitioner has no previous case pending against him. Hence, she opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the nature of the allegations, the fact that the injured

was discharged from the hospital and that the petitioner has no bad antecedents, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen

(15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the learned

XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only), with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition 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 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 not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(d) the petitioner shall not abscond 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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the 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) AIR SCW 5560]; and;

(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 18.02.2026 drl To 1.The XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

2. The Inspector of Police, H-6 RK Nagar Police Station, Chennai. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

drl CRL.O.P.No.3947 of 2026 18.02.2026

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial