Perumal Vs State Represented by the Inspector of Police

Perumal vs State Represented by the Inspector of Police

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jun 25, 2026

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1474370

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/1474370
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan
Decided On: Jun 25, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/16267/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Perumal

Respondent

State Represented by the Inspector of Police

Excerpt

.....against the petitioner. hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.5. i have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.6. considering the facts and circumstances of the case; taking note of thesubmission made by the learned government counsel (crl.side); considering the totality of the circumstances and quantity involved and the period of page2 of 5 incarceration of the petitioner, this court is of the firm view that for the purpose of investigation, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. hence, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, 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 each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned judicial magistrate, cheyyar, and on further conditions that: [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 learned respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for the period of four weeks 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; [e] on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned magistrate/trial court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance withpage3 of 5law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned magistrate/trial court himself as laid down by the.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Perumal ..Petitioner Vs State Represented by The Inspector of Police Cheyyar Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District. Crime No.168 of 2026 ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on bail in connection with the Crime No.168 of 2026, on the file of Respondent Police. For Petitioner: Mr.V.Ramanareddy For Respondent: Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.06.2026 for the alleged offence under 303(2) and 326(a) of BNS and Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 in Crime No.168 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page1 of 5

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved

in illegal transportation of quarter unit of river sand without any valid permit or licence by using pickup truck and that the petitioner was caught red handed by the respondent police. Hence, the case.

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

innocent and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and he is ready to co-operate for investigation. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

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

respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that there are seven previous cases pending against the petitioner. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case; taking note of the

submission made by the learned Government counsel (Crl.Side); considering the totality of the circumstances and quantity involved and the period of Page2 of 5 incarceration of the petitioner, this Court is of the firm view that for the purpose of investigation, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, 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 each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar, and on further conditions that: [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 learned respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for the period of four weeks 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; [e] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with

Page3 of 5

law as if the aforementioned 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)13 SCC 283]; [f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

25-06-2026 SHL 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, Cheyyar

2. The Inspector of Police Cheyyar Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

3. The Central Prison, Vellore

4. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Page4 of 5 C.KUMARAPPAN J. SHL 25-06-2026 Page5 of 5

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties Perumal vs State Represented by the Inspector of Police Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan

In connection with Public prosecutor Police Station supreme court trial court high court Subject to