S. Venkatesan @ Sonatica Vs The State represented by The Inspector of Police

S. Venkatesan @ Sonatica vs The State represented by The Inspector of Police

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided May 06, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1441250

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/1441250
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mrs.Justice L.Victoria Gowri
Decided On: May 06, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/11055/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

S. Venkatesan @ Sonatica

Respondent

The State represented by The Inspector of Police

Excerpt

.....the present case was registered.3. the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner isinnocent and has been falsely implicated in this case without any basis. it is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and will appear before the respondent police as and when required. the learned counsel further contended that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this court. hence, he prayed for the grant of bail to the petitioner.4. the learned government advocate (criminal side) appearing for therespondent police, while opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution's case and submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 02.03.2026. he further submitted that there are 15 previous cases pending against the petitioner.5. heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.6. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of theallegations and the fact that there are many previous cases which are similar in nature, are pending against the petitioner, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. to:1. the inspector of police,2. the public prosecutor, high court of madras. l.victoria gowri j.

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06-05-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI S.Venkatesan @ Sonatica Petitioner Vs
1. The State represented by
The Inspector of Police Crime No.48 of 2026 Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.48 of 2026 on the file of Inspector of Police, Manavala Nagar Police Station, Tiruvallur District. For Petitioner: Mr.A.M.Nebel Shinu Joe For Respondent: Mr.V.J.Priyadarsana Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 02.03.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 r/w. Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 in Crime No.48 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found in illegal possession of explosive substances.. Hence, the present case was registered.

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

innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case without any basis. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and will appear before the respondent police as and when required. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for the grant of bail to the petitioner.

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

respondent police, while opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution's case and submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 02.03.2026. He further submitted that there are 15 previous cases pending against the petitioner.

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

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the

allegations and the fact that there are many previous cases which are similar in nature, are pending against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. To:

1. The Inspector of Police,

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. L.VICTORIA GOWRI J.

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties S. Venkatesan @ Sonatica vs The State represented by The Insp... Same Judge Honourable Mrs.Justice L.Victoria Gowri