Senthamizh Arasu Vs The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police,

Senthamizh Arasu vs The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police,

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided May 13, 2026

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1438574

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/1438574
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice P. Dhanabal
Decided On: May 13, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/11229/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Senthamizh Arasu

Respondent

The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police,

Excerpt

.....and section 4 of the tamil nadu prohibition of harassment of women (amendment) act, 2002 on page1 of 5 the file of respondent, seeks anticipatory bail.2. the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused assaulted the defacto complainant and abused him in filthy language. hence, the case.3. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit thatthere was a property dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. he further submitted that a false case has been foisted against him and he has nothing to do with the alleged offence. thus, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.4. the learned government advocate (criminal side) appearing for therespondent would submit that investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature, however, injured has been discharged from the hospital. hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.5. heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.6. considering the representations made on either side, considering thenature of offences charged against the petitioner, considering the fact that injured has been discharged from the hospital and that there is no previous cases page2 of 5 pending against this petitioner, i am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:7. accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in theevent of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned judicial magistrate, sulur, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate concerned and on further condition that: [a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police at 10 a.m., every saturday for a period of 4 weeks; [b] the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly,.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-05-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Senthamizh Arasu S/o. Mr. Veluchamy Kumarapalayam, Coimbatore- 641 669. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Sulthanpettai Police Station, Coimbatore (Crime No. 50 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) To enlarge the Petitioner on Second Anticipatory Bail, in the event of arrest in Crime No. 50 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police and pass further orders as deemed fit and proper and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Prasanna D For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. side)

ORDER

The petitioner / Accused No. 2, who apprehends arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS, 2023, Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Destructions and Loss) Act, 1982 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women (Amendment) Act, 2002 on Page1 of 5 the file of respondent, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused assaulted the defacto complainant and abused him in filthy language. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

there was a property dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. He further submitted that a false case has been foisted against him and he has nothing to do with the alleged offence. Thus, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

respondent would submit that investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature, however, injured has been discharged from the hospital. Hence, he opposed to grant Anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the representations made on either side, considering the

nature of offences charged against the petitioner, considering the fact that injured has been discharged from the hospital and that there is no previous cases Page2 of 5 pending against this petitioner, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following 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 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sulur, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: [a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police at 10 a.m., every Saturday for a period of 4 weeks; [b] the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

[c] the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned

Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and Page3 of 5 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)AIR SCW 5560]. [f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.2023. 13-05-2026 Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No GD 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. To

1. Judicial Magistrate, Sulur. 2.The Inspector of Police, Sulthanpettai Police Station, Coimbatore 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai. Page4 of 5

P.DHANABAL, J.

GD 13-05-2026 Page5 of 5

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties Senthamizh Arasu vs The State Represented by, The Inspector o... Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice P. Dhanabal