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.

Vinothkumar Vs The State Rep By The Inspector of Police,

Vinothkumar vs The State Rep By The Inspector of Police,

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided May 13, 2026
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1442591

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/10325/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vinothkumar

Respondent

The State Rep By The Inspector of Police,

Excerpt

.....he further submits that the investigation has been completed. hence he objected to grant bail to the petitioner.5. heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.6. considering the rival submissions on either side, consideringthe fact that the investigation has been completed and taking note of the fact that in all previous cases, which are not similar to the present case, the petitioner was granted bail and also considering the incarceration period of this petitioner from 22.02.2026, i am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: [a] accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to 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 judicial magistrate, arani and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the judicial magistrate, arani daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders. [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, or of the commission ofwhich he is suspected; [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [e] 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; [f] on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned judicial magistrate/trial court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and 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]. [g] if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh fir can be registered under section 229a ipc.13.05.2026 index: yes/no.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 13.05.2026

CORAM

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice P.DHANABAL CRL OP.No.10325 of 2026 Vinothkumar ... Petitioner Vs State rep. By:- The Inspector of Police, Arani Taluk Police Station, Arani. Tiruvannamalai District. (Crime No.83 of 2026) … Respondent PRAYER: - Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.83 of 2026 on the file of the respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vignesh For Respondent : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Criminal side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.02.2026 for the offences punishable under Section 103(1) BNS 2023 and Section 302 of IPC in Cr. No. 83 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner married the

deceased in 2016. The petitioner was already married to one Asha, with whom he has two daughters. The petitioner married the deceased Kavitha in the year 2016. It is alleged that there were frequent quarrels between them, as the petitioner suspected the deceased of having an illicit relationship. On 21.02.2026, during the quarrel, the petitioner assaulted her, resulting in her death. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that the earlier bail applications filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court was dismissed. The petitioner was in judicial custody from 22.02.2026, hence he prayed to grant bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would

submit that the petitioner has committed the murder of his wife and the allegation is grave in nature and he is also a history sheeter and there are 24 previous cases pending against him. He further submits that the investigation has been completed. Hence he objected to grant bail to the petitioner.

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

6. Considering the rival submissions on either side, considering

the fact that the investigation has been completed and taking note of the fact that in all previous cases, which are not similar to the present case, the petitioner was granted bail and also considering the incarceration period of this petitioner from 22.02.2026, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to 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 Judicial Magistrate, Arani and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the Judicial Magistrate, Arani daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders. [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of

which he is suspected; [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [e] 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and 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]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

13.05.2026 index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No

Speaking/Non Speaking order

mp 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.The Judicial Magistrate, Arani. 2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai. 3.The Inspector of Police, Arani Taluk Police Station, Arani. Tiruvannamalai District.

4. The Central Prison, Vellore. P.DHANABAL,J mp CRL. O.P. No.10325 of 2026 13.05.2026

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial