Sundarrajan Vs The State Rep By

Sundarrajan vs The State Rep By

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided May 06, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1442272

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/1442272
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mrs.Justice L.Victoria Gowri
Decided On: May 06, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/10868/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sundarrajan

Respondent

The State Rep By

Excerpt

.....under sections 126(2), 140(2), 310 and 311 of bnsk, is on board for consideration. page1 of 42. the case of the prosecution is that on 03.03.2026 at about 10.30p.m., near irungal village, the petitioner, along with other accused, waylaid the de facto complainant, abducted him, threatened him at knife point and snatched gold jewels and a sum of rs.10,000/- from his possession. it is further alleged that the accused threatened the mother of the de facto complainant to bring her jewels and obtained the same through the cousin of the de facto complainant, thereby, giving rise to the present case.3. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that thepetitioner is an innocent person and has been under incarceration since 10.03.2026. he further submitted that the de facto complainant is the cousin of the petitioner and that there existed a money dispute between them, in connection with which the petitioner had gone to the residence of the de facto complainant. the present case has been falsely registered against him. it is also submitted that the alleged robbed gold jewels and cash have already been recovered and therefore, he prayed for the grant of bail to the petitioner.4. learned government advocate (criminal side) appearing for therespondent reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for the grant of bail. he further submitted that some of the accused are yet to be arrested. he also submitted that this is the second anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners and the earlier application has been dismissed by this court very page2 of 4recently on 30.03.2026. he also submitted that there is no change in circumstances in the present application.5. heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.6. considering the gravity of the offences and upon the ground that there is no change in circumstances, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. hence, this criminal original petition is dismissed. index:.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06-05-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Sundarrajan ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By The Inspector of Police, (Crime No. 15 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) 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.15 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.R.Appaswamee For Respondent(s): Mr.V.J.Priyadarsana Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

Petition seeking bail in connection with Crime No.15 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 140(2), 310 and 311 of BNSk, is on board for consideration. Page1 of 4

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.03.2026 at about 10.30

p.m., near Irungal Village, the petitioner, along with other accused, waylaid the de facto complainant, abducted him, threatened him at knife point and snatched gold jewels and a sum of Rs.10,000/- from his possession. It is further alleged that the accused threatened the mother of the de facto complainant to bring her jewels and obtained the same through the cousin of the de facto complainant, thereby, giving rise to the present case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is an innocent person and has been under incarceration since 10.03.2026. He further submitted that the de facto complainant is the cousin of the petitioner and that there existed a money dispute between them, in connection with which the petitioner had gone to the residence of the de facto complainant. The present case has been falsely registered against him. It is also submitted that the alleged robbed gold jewels and cash have already been recovered and therefore, he prayed for the grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the

respondent reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for the grant of bail. He further submitted that some of the accused are yet to be arrested. He also submitted that this is the second anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners and the earlier application has been dismissed by this Court very Page2 of 4

recently on 30.03.2026. He also submitted that there is no change in circumstances in the present application.

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

6. Considering the gravity of the offences and upon the ground that there is no change in circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No VKR To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar. 2.The Inspector of Police, 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. Page3 of 4

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

VKR Page4 of 4

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties Sundarrajan vs The State Rep By Same Judge Honourable Mrs.Justice L.Victoria Gowri