Devaraj Vs State rep. by The Inspector of Police

Devaraj vs State rep. by The Inspector of Police

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 27, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1519584

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/1519584
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar
Decided On: Jan 27, 2026
Case Number: /1629/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Devaraj

Respondent

State rep. by The Inspector of Police

Excerpt

in the high court of judicature at madrasdated: 27-01-2026coramthe honourable mr.justice k.rajasekar1. devaraj s/o.balasubramani, kalugopachandram, arasakuppam, krishnagiri district. petitioner(s) vs1. state rep. by the inspector of police respondent(s)prayer to enlarge him on bail in the event of his arrest in crime no.487/2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police and thus render justice. for petitioner(s): a.balamurugan for respondent(s): m/s.j.r.archana government advocate (crl.side)orderthe petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under section 109(1), 61(2) of bns and section 25(1)(a) of arms act in crime no.487 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.2. this is 2nd anticipatory bail petition. earlier anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner was dismissed on 16.12.2025 in crl.o.p.no.34404 of 2025 on the following reasons:“5. i have considered the submissions made on both sides and perused the materials available on record, which reveals that, the petitioner herein has driven the car and hit the defacto complainant and it is a clear case of attempt to murder the defacto complainant.6. considering the above facts, the nature of injuries sustained by the defacto complainant, the manner in which the occurrence is said to have taken place, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.”3. considering that there is no change in circumstances and i am not inclined to reconsider the earlier order. accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. mpa index:yes/nospeaking/non-speaking orderinternet:yes neutral citation:yes/no to 1.state rep. by the inspector of police 2.the public prosecutor high court of madras. k.rajasekar j. mpa crl op no. 1629 of

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

1. Devaraj S/o.Balasubramani, Kalugopachandram, Arasakuppam, Krishnagiri District. Petitioner(s) Vs

1. State rep. by The Inspector of Police Respondent(s)

PRAYER To enlarge him on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.487/2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): A.Balamurugan For Respondent(s): M/S.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 109(1), 61(2) of BNS and Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act in Crime No.487 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. This is 2nd anticipatory bail petition. Earlier anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner was dismissed on 16.12.2025 in Crl.O.P.No.34404 of 2025 on the following reasons:

“5. I have considered the submissions made on both sides and perused the materials available on record, which reveals that, the petitioner herein has driven the car and hit the defacto complainant and it is a clear case of attempt to murder the defacto complainant.

6. Considering the above facts, the nature of injuries sustained by the defacto complainant, the manner in which the occurrence is said to have taken place, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.”

3. Considering that there is no change in circumstances and I am not inclined to reconsider the earlier order. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Mpa Index:Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No To 1.State rep. by The Inspector of Police 2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras. K.RAJASEKAR J. mpa CRL OP No. 1629 of

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties Devaraj vs State rep. by The Inspector of Police Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar