Senthil Vs The State rep.by,

Senthil vs The State rep.by,

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 24, 2026

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1431884

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/1431884
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan
Decided On: Mar 24, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/6505/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Senthil

Respondent

The State rep.by,

Excerpt

.....of harassment of women act, 2002 in crime no.39 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. page1 of 52. the case of the prosecution is that, due to a family dispute, a wordyquarrel between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. during the course of the said quarrel, it is alleged that the petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant and caused injuries to him. hence, the complaint.3. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that thepetitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. he further submitted that the occurrence arose out of a wordy quarrel between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, and pursuant thereto, a complaint was lodged. he further submitted that the parties have now arrived at a compromise. 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 petitioner had assaulted the defacto complainant with a helmet and he dispute the alleged compromise. hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.5. i have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.6. taking into consideration the relationship between the petitioner andpage2 of 5 the defacto complainant, the nature of the allegations and the fact that the occurrence erupted due to family dispute and subsequent development of compromise, and that the defacto complainant was discharged, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions.7. accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the eventof arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned judicial magistrate-i, chengalpattu, on condition that the petitioner shall.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Senthil ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Palur Police Station, Chengalpattu District. (Crime No.39 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on Bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.39 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Vijayakumar For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 115(2) of BNS and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 in Crime No.39 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. Page1 of 5

2. The case of the prosecution is that, due to a family dispute, a wordy

quarrel between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. During the course of the said quarrel, it is alleged that the petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant and caused injuries to him. Hence, the complaint.

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

petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the occurrence arose out of a wordy quarrel between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, and pursuant thereto, a complaint was lodged. He further submitted that the parties have now arrived at a compromise. 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 petitioner had assaulted the defacto complainant with a helmet and he dispute the alleged compromise. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.

6. Taking into consideration the relationship between the petitioner and

Page2 of 5 the defacto complainant, the nature of the allegations and the fact that the occurrence erupted due to family dispute and subsequent development of compromise, and that the defacto complainant was discharged, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions.

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

of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu, 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 conditions:

(a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) 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 identify proofs to ensure their identity; Page3 of 5

(c) The petitioner shall stay at Trichy and report before the Malaikottai Police Station,daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of one week and thereafter report before the respondent police for another two weeks.

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the

learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e) If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be

registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 24-03-2026 MPA To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpattu. 2.The Inspector of Police Palur Police Station, Chengalpattu District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Page4 of 5

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

DRL 24-03-2026 Page5 of 5

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties Senthil vs The State rep.by, Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan