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.

Kumar Vs State rep.by,

Kumar vs State rep.by,

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 30, 2026
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1441980

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
CRL OP/10015/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kumar

Respondent

State rep.by,

Excerpt

.....police for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 506(i) of ipc in crime no.355 of 2025 , seek anticipatory bail.2. the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused collected a sum of rs.13.8 lakhs from the defacto complainant for getting patta for the lands belong to him and thereby cheated him.3. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that thepetitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. he further submitted that there is no record to show that the alleged money paid by the defacto complainant in favour of the accused. hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.4. the learned government advocate (crl. side) reiterated the prosecution case and opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.5. the learned counsel appearing for the intervenor reiterated theprosecution case and submitted that the petitioner along with other accused collected the money to the tune of rs.13.8 lakhs from the defacto complainant on the promise that they would get patta from the tahsildar and thereafter avoided contact with the defacto complainant. hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.6. considering the above facts and circumstances that the dispute is civil in nature, 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 theevent 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, ponneri, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.04.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Kumar ... Petitioner Vs. The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, E-1, Ponneri Police Station, Thiruvallur District. (Crime No.355 of 2025). ... Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in connection with Crime No.355 of 2025, pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : M/s.V.Sangeetha For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhilpeean Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For Intervenor : Mr.M.Velmurugan for Mr.K.S.Karthikeyan

ORDER

The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.355 of 2025 , seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused collected a sum of Rs.13.8 lakhs from the defacto complainant for getting patta for the lands belong to him and thereby cheated him.

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

petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that there is no record to show that the alleged money paid by the defacto complainant in favour of the accused. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reiterated the prosecution case and opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor reiterated the

prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner along with other accused collected the money to the tune of Rs.13.8 lakhs from the defacto complainant on the promise that they would get patta from the Tahsildar and thereafter avoided contact with the defacto complainant. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Considering the above facts and circumstances that the dispute is civil in nature, 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, Ponneri, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate 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 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 petitioners and 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 daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [d] the petitioners 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 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 229A IPC.

30.04.2026 Sma To

1. Judicial Magistrate, Ponneri

2. The Inspector of Police, E-1, Ponneri Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

3. . The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.,J.

Sma 30.04.2026

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial