Sathishkumar Vs State represented by, The Inspector of Police,

Sathishkumar vs State represented by, The Inspector of Police,

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Mar 30, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1435694

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/1435694
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan
Decided On: Mar 30, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/8034/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sathishkumar

Respondent

State represented by, The Inspector of Police,

Excerpt

.....circumstances of this case and thus render justice. for petitioner(s): m/s.ganesan t for respondent(s): mr.p.dhileepan government advocate (crl.side)orderthe petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under sections 331(3), 305 and 62 of bns in crime no.438 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. page1 of 42. the case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, selvarajwho had rented out a portion of his premises for an atm, found that two batteries were missing on successive days. on 16.10.2025, when he kept watch, the accused allegedly attempted to remove the batteries, but escaped when caught. based on the complaint, a case has been registered against the petitioner.3. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is aninnocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case by the respondent police, on account of previous antecedents. he further submitted that he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this court. hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.4. learned government advocate (criminal side) appearing for therespondent police reiterated the prosecution’s case and, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner has 11 previous cases, pending against him. hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.5. in such view of the position and that the petitioner has 11 previouscases against him, which clearly demonstrates that the petitioner has misused the liberty granted by this court. therefore, this court is not inclined to enlarge page2 of 4 the petitioner on anticipatory bail.6. accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. drl to 1.the inspector of police, salem district. 2.the public prosecutor, high court, madras. page3 of 4c.kumarappan, j.drl page4 of 4

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Sathishkumar S/o.Rayar, South Street, Attur Main Road, Palaniyapuri, Salem. ..Petitioner(s) Vs State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Salem District (Cr.No.438/ 2025) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.438 of 2025 on the file of Ethapur Police Station, Salem and pass such other or further orders as this Honble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): M/s.Ganesan T For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 331(3), 305 and 62 of BNS in Crime No.438 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. Page1 of 4

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, Selvaraj

who had rented out a portion of his premises for an ATM, found that two batteries were missing on successive days. On 16.10.2025, when he kept watch, the accused allegedly attempted to remove the batteries, but escaped when caught. Based on the complaint, a case has been registered against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an

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

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the

respondent police reiterated the prosecution’s case and, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner has 11 previous cases, pending against him. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. In such view of the position and that the petitioner has 11 previous

cases against him, which clearly demonstrates that the petitioner has misused the liberty granted by this Court. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to enlarge Page2 of 4 the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. DRL To 1.The Inspector of Police, Salem District. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Page3 of 4

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

DRL Page4 of 4

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties Sathishkumar vs State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan