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.

Murugesan Vs State by

Murugesan vs State by

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 27, 2026
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1428571

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/5071/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Murugesan

Respondent

State by

Excerpt

.....115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of bns act, 2023 in crime no.34 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.2. the allegation against the petitioner is that due to previous enmity,petitioner along with other accused attacked the defacto complainant with iron rod, due to which, defacto complainant sustained injuries. hence, the case was registered.3. the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioneris an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. he further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this court. hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.4. the learned government advocate (crl. side) reiterated theprosecution case and submitted that apart from this case, petitioner has no previous case. he further submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. however, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.considering the nature of allegations and the fact that the petitioner has no previous case injured discharged from hospital, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.6. accordingly, the petitioner are 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, kilvelur 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.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

Murugesan ... Petitioner Vs. State by: The Inspector of Police, Kilvelur Police Station, Nagapatinam. (Crime No.34 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, pending investigation in Crime No.34 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.Senthil Kumar Rajappan For Respondent : M/s.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 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS Act, 2023 in Crime No.34 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that due to previous enmity,

petitioner along with other accused attacked the defacto complainant with iron rod, due to which, defacto complainant sustained injuries. Hence, the case was registered.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reiterated the

prosecution case and submitted that apart from this case, petitioner has no previous case. He further submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.Considering the nature of allegations and the fact that the petitioner has no previous case injured discharged from hospital, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner are 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, Kilvelur 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. 27.02.2026 sma To

1. The Inspector of Police, Kilvelur Police Station, Nagapatinam. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

sma 27.02.2026

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial