Dharma Vs State rep.by,

Dharma vs State rep.by,

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 12, 2026

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1431162

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/1431162
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice M. Nirmal Kumar
Decided On: Mar 12, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/6405/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dharma

Respondent

State rep.by,

Excerpt

.....petitioners and to consider the bail petition on the same day in crime no. 7 of 2026 on the file of the 2nd respondent police.2. the alleged case of the prosecution is that on17.01.2026, at about 4pm, one nitish and anandkumar, who belong to the de facto complainant’s village, had gone to navithampatti village, where the petitioners and other accused were residing, and consumed alcohol near a bridge. at that time, four persons belonging to navithampatti village were already consuming alcohol there and under the influence of alcohol, a wordy quarrel ensued between them and nitish and anandakumar were assaulted in the said occurrence. thereafter, nitish and anandakumar returned to their village and informed the other youths there. as a consequence, the de facto complainant along with nitish, anandakumar and a few others went to sivan koil street, navithampatti village and questioned about the earlier occurrence to those present there, which included the petitioners and otheraccused. soon thereafter, what started as a verbal altercation snowballed into a serious fight and the two groups came to blows. the de facto complainant and his group were assaulted with iron rods and they were also abused by using their caste name. hence, the complaint.3. according to the petitioners, it is only the de factocomplainant and others, who had voluntarily started a wordy quarrel and attacked the petitioners and others with iron rods; that the petitioners and others were admitted to government hospital, pernambut and that a complaint was also lodged by the 1 st petitioner before the 2nd respondent, which came to be registered in crime no. 8 of 2026.4. heard the learned additional public prosecutor and perused the materials on record.5. it is seen that there was a wordy quarrel between onenitish and anandakumar, who belong to the village of the de facto complainant and four persons of navithampatti village under the influence of alcohol, in which nitish and anandakumar were.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

1. Dharma

2. Perumal ..Petitioners Vs.

1. State rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vellore Sub Division, Vellore District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Melpatti Police Station, Vellore District. (Crime No. 7 of 2026)

3. Sakthi ..Respondents

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to direct the Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Vellore to accept the surrender of the petitioners and to consider the bail petition on the same day in Crime No. 7 of 2026 on the file of the 2nd respondent Police. For Petitioners :: Mr.S. Krishnamoorthy

For Respondents :: Mr. Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam for R1 & R2

ORDER

This criminal original petition is filed direct the Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Vellore to accept the surrender of the petitioners and to consider the bail petition on the same day in Crime No. 7 of 2026 on the file of the 2nd respondent Police.

2. The alleged case of the prosecution is that on

17.01.2026, at about 4pm, one Nitish and Anandkumar, who belong to the de facto complainant’s village, had gone to Navithampatti Village, where the petitioners and other accused were residing, and consumed alcohol near a bridge. At that time, four persons belonging to Navithampatti Village were already consuming alcohol there and under the influence of alcohol, a wordy quarrel ensued between them and Nitish and Anandakumar were assaulted in the said occurrence. Thereafter, Nitish and Anandakumar returned to their village and informed the other youths there. As a consequence, the de facto complainant along with Nitish, Anandakumar and a few others went to Sivan Koil Street, Navithampatti Village and questioned about the earlier occurrence to those present there, which included the petitioners and other

accused. Soon thereafter, what started as a verbal altercation snowballed into a serious fight and the two groups came to blows. The de facto complainant and his group were assaulted with iron rods and they were also abused by using their caste name. Hence, the complaint.

3. According to the petitioners, it is only the de facto

complainant and others, who had voluntarily started a wordy quarrel and attacked the petitioners and others with iron rods; that the petitioners and others were admitted to Government Hospital, Pernambut and that a complaint was also lodged by the 1 st petitioner before the 2nd respondent, which came to be registered in Crime No. 8 of 2026.

4. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the materials on record.

5. It is seen that there was a wordy quarrel between one

Nitish and Anandakumar, who belong to the village of the de facto complainant and four persons of Navithampatti village under the influence of alcohol, in which Nitish and Anandakumar were assaulted. Thereafter, the duo left the place and informed the de facto complainant about the occurrence, which resulted in the de facto complainant and his group

reaching Navithampatti Village to question about the assault on Nitish and Anandakumar, which ultimately ended up in de facto complainant’s group sustaining injuries at the hands of the petitioners and other accused. They were also abused by calling their caste name during the altercation.

6. In view of the above factual position, there shall be a

direction to the Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Vellore, to consider the petitioners' bail application, preferably on the same day of their surrender, in connection with Crime No.7 of 2026 on the file of the second respondent Police and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to the victims under Section 15-A of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989. The petitioners shall surrender before the jurisdictional Court concerned within a period of fifteen days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.

7. The Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of accordingly. 12.03.2026 nv To 1.The Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Vellore. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vellore Sub Division, Vellore District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Melpatti Police Station, Vellore District.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

M. NIRMAL KUMAR,J.

nv 12.03.2026

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties Dharma vs State rep.by, Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice M. Nirmal Kumar