Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ajaykumar Vs State rep.by its,

Ajaykumar vs State rep.by its,

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 30, 2026
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1441236

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
/9353/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ajaykumar

Respondent

State rep.by its,

Excerpt

.....respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 296(b), 115(2), 132 and 351(3) of bns in crime no.79 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.2. the case of the prosecution is that the accused abused the de facto complainant, a police constable, in filthy language and prevented him from discharging his official duties. hence the case.3. learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted thatthe petitioners are innocent and a false complaint has been lodged against them. he further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this court. hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.4. learned government advocate (criminal side) appearing forthe respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. he further submitted that several previous cases are pending against the petitioners.5. heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.6. considering the above facts and circumstances of the case andthe nature of the allegation and further taking note of the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not required for the purpose of investigation, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.7. accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bailin the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned judicial magistrate no.7, coimbatore, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties, each for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

1. Ajaykumar

2. Prabakaran

3. Manojkumar ... Petitioners Vs. The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Kuniyamuthur Police Station, Coimbatore City. (Crime No.79 of 2026) ... Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.79 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Ms.A.Jagadeeswari For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 132 and 351(3) of BNS in Crime No.79 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused abused the de facto complainant, a police constable, in filthy language and prevented him from discharging his official duties. Hence the case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that

the petitioners are innocent and a false complaint has been lodged against them. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for

the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. He further submitted that several previous cases are pending against the petitioners.

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

6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and

the nature of the allegation and further taking note of the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 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 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.7, Coimbatore, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties, each for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent Police everyday at 10.30.a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation; [c] the petitioners shall not abscond during during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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 abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

30.04.2026 ham To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.7, Coimbatore.

2. The Inspector of Police, Kuniyamuthur Police Station. Coimbatore City.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

ham 30.04.2026

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial