Vikram Vs State rep. by its The Inspector of Police,

Vikram vs State rep. by its The Inspector of Police,

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 02, 2026

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1437023

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/1437023
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan
Decided On: Apr 02, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/8254/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vikram

Respondent

State rep. by its The Inspector of Police,

Excerpt

.....n.k.n. circle, kichipalayam road, salem an altercation took place between two groups in front of sivasakthi coffee bar and gupta sweet shop. during the incident, the named accused along with six unidentified persons allegedly assaulted the defacto complainant. hence, the complaint.3. the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the occurrencetook place at a tea shop, wherein, furtherance thereof , a wordy altercation took place, during which the defacto complainant sustained injuries. he further submitted that the co-accused has been released on bail by this court. hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.4. per contra, the learned government advocate (crl.side) appearing forthe respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that a6 and a8 have caused injuries to the defacto complainant. he further submitted that when earlier anticipatory bail was granted in crl.op.no.5216 of 2026 dated 02.03.2026, it was inadvertenly represented before this court that the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant were simple in nature. according to the wound certificate, the defacto complainant sustained three simple injuries and one grievous injury, namely fracture of the nasal bone. he further submitted that he was hospitalized for a period of seven days. hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. page2 of 55. i have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.6. though the defacto complainant sustained grievous injuries, the factremains that he was hospitalised for a period of seven days and was discharged on 18.02.2026 and the co-accused was released on bail by this court in crl.op.no.5216 of 2026 dated 02.03.2026. taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and that the injured has already been discharged from the hospital and the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required at this length of time, as the fir was.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Vikram No.7Q, Kasthuribai Street, Kitchipalayam,

2. Udhayakumar S/o. Parasuraman, No.157/1/216, Kasthuribai Street, Kitchipalayam ..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep. by its The Inspector of Police, SALEM TOWN Police Station, (Crime No.28 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 their arrest in Crime No.28 of 2026, on the file of the respondent and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr. W. Camyles Gandhi For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections Page1 of 5 189(4), 296(b), 118(1), 109 of BNS, in Crime No.28 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.02.2026 at about 11.00 p.m,

near N.K.N. Circle, Kichipalayam Road, Salem an altercation took place between two groups in front of Sivasakthi Coffee Bar and Gupta Sweet Shop. During the incident, the named accused along with six unidentified persons allegedly assaulted the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the occurrence

took place at a tea shop, wherein, furtherance thereof , a wordy altercation took place, during which the defacto complainant sustained injuries. He further submitted that the co-accused has been released on bail by this Court. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for

the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that A6 and A8 have caused injuries to the defacto complainant. He further submitted that when earlier anticipatory bail was granted in Crl.OP.No.5216 of 2026 dated 02.03.2026, it was inadvertenly represented before this Court that the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant were simple in nature. According to the wound certificate, the defacto complainant sustained three simple injuries and one grievous injury, namely fracture of the nasal bone. He further submitted that he was hospitalized for a period of seven days. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Page2 of 5

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

6. Though the defacto complainant sustained grievous injuries, the fact

remains that he was hospitalised for a period of seven days and was discharged on 18.02.2026 and the co-accused was released on bail by this Court in Crl.OP.No.5216 of 2026 dated 02.03.2026. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and that the injured has already been discharged from the hospital and the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required at this length of time, as the FIR was registered on 12.02.2026 this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the

event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate 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 petitioners 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 Page3 of 5 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;

Police, daily at 10.30 a.m. and 5.30 p.m, for a period of two weeks and thereafter once in a month for a further period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

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

learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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 petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be

registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 02-04-2026 DRL To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem. 2.The Inspector of Police, SALEM TOWN Police Station, 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Page4 of 5

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

DRL 02-04-2026 Page5 of 5

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties Vikram vs State rep. by its The Inspector of Police, Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan