S.Ganapathy Vs State Rep. by

S.Ganapathy vs State Rep. by

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jun 25, 2026

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1473465

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/1473465
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan
Decided On: Jun 25, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/15321/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

S.Ganapathy

Respondent

State Rep. by

Excerpt

.....consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. page2 of 56. from the submission of the learned counsel on either side and takinginto consideration the long incarceration of the petitioner since 24.05.2026 and the fact that the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by the learned principal district and sessions judge, tiruvallur in crl.m.p.no.2239 of 2026 dated 22.06.2026, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.7. accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on hisexecuting a bond for a sum of rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty-five thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned district munsif-cum-judicial magistrate court, uthukottai, and subject to the following conditions: [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship [judicial form no.46 annexed to 'the criminal rules of practice, 2019']. the learned magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity;[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of 30 days and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;page3 of 5[e] on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned magistrate/trial court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned magistrate/trial court itself, as laid down by the hon'ble supreme court in p.k.shaji vs. state of kerala [(2005)13 scc 283]; [f] if the petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh fir may be registered under section 269 of the bharatiya nyaya sanhita,.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN S.Ganapathy ..Petitioner Vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police, C-1, Uthukottai Police Station, Tiruvallur. ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending investigation in Crime No.99 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent. For Petitioner: Mr.S.Sakthivel For Respondent: Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.05.2026 for the alleged offences under Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Destruction and Loss) Act, 1982 and under Section 115(2), 132, 296(b), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.99 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page1 of 5

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with the other

accused went on a trip in a Swift car and while returning, the respondent police attempted to intercept the vehicle at a check post near Uthukottai. It is alleged that the petitioner and the other accused failed to stop the vehicle and attempted to escape, resulting in a chase during which the respondent police vehicle was damaged. Hence, the case was registered. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that no serious overt act has been attributed against the petitioner and he has been in judicial custody since 24.05.2026. The learned counsel would further submit that the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur in Crl.M.P.No.2239 of 2026 dated 22.06.2026 and the petitioner is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. Page2 of 5

6. From the submission of the learned counsel on either side and taking

into consideration the long incarceration of the petitioner since 24.05.2026 and the fact that the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur in Crl.M.P.No.2239 of 2026 dated 22.06.2026, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his

executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthukottai, and subject to the following conditions: [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of 30 days and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

Page3 of 5

[e] on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283]; [f] if the petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

25-06-2026 NSL 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 District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthukottai.

2. Central Prison, Puzhal.

3. The Inspector of Police, C-1, Uthukottai Police Station, Tiruvallur.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. Page4 of 5

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

NSL 25-06-2026 Page5 of 5

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties S.Ganapathy vs State Rep. by Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan

In accordance with law Public prosecutor magistrate court Public property Police Station supreme court trial court high court