Kaleeswaran Vs The State Represented by The Inspector of Police

Kaleeswaran vs The State Represented by The Inspector of Police

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 17, 2026

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1432836

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/1432836
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan
Decided On: Mar 17, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/6858/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kaleeswaran

Respondent

The State Represented by The Inspector of Police

Excerpt

.....found in his possession. he further submitted that the petitioner has nine previous cases including one murder case and that the investigation has been completed. page2 of 65. taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances andthe fact that the investigation has been completed and that the petitioner has been in incarceration since 02.02.2026, this court is of the firm view that, at this length of time, further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. hence, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.6. accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on herexecuting a bond for a sum of rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned judicial magistrate court, palladam, 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 twice a day at 10.30 a.m. and 05.30 p.m. until further orders, and no relaxation petition shall be entertained for a period of 60 days; page3 of 6 [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;[e] 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];[f] if the accused thereafter.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Kaleeswaran ..Petitioner Vs The State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Palladam Police Station, Tiruppur District. Cr.No.96 of 2026 ..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 483 of BNSS, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.96 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police. For Petitioner: Mr.A.Parthasarathy for M/s.A.Parthasarathy and Associates For Respondent: Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 02.02.2026 for the alleged offence under Section 25(1A) of Arms Act, 1959 in Crime No.96 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page1 of 6

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.02.2026, the respondent Police found weapons in a shoulder bag which was left behind by the petitioner at the Palladam Bus Stand when they approached him. Hence, the case.

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

petitioner has been in incarceration since 02.02.2026 under Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act, 1959 and it is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has not been involved in any other offence in furtherance of such possession under the Arms Act.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for

the Respondent Police opposed the bail application on the ground that, on suspicion, when the petitioner was searched, the police found one knife and one aruval found in his possession. He further submitted that the petitioner has nine previous cases including one murder case and that the investigation has been completed. Page2 of 6

5. Taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances and

the fact that the investigation has been completed and that the petitioner has been in incarceration since 02.02.2026, this Court is of the firm view that, at this length of time, further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her

executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Palladam, 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 twice a day at 10.30 a.m. and 05.30 p.m. until further orders, and no relaxation petition shall be entertained for a period of 60 days; Page3 of 6 [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[e] 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];

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 27.04.2026 cda 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. Page4 of 6 To 1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Palladam. 2.The Inspector of Police, Palladam Police Station, Tiruppur District. 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. Page5 of 6 C.KUMARAPPAN J. cda Crl.OP.No.10386 of 2026 27.04.2026 Page6 of 6

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties Kaleeswaran vs The State Represented by The Inspector of Police Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan