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.

Jesu Raj Vs The State Rep by

Jesu Raj vs The State Rep by

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 09, 2025
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1708676

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/310/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jesu Raj

Respondent

The State Rep by

Excerpt

.....condition that may be imposed by this court. 3.the case of the prosecution as putforth by the learned government advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent police, opposing for grant of anticipatory bail, is that the petitioner, the defacto complainant and all other accused are working as delivery person in zepto delivery company. on the date of occurrence all the accused went to the theatre to watch a movie, where a2 and the defacto complainant had wordy quarrel, due to which a1, a2 and a4 attacked the defacto complainant with hands and a3 attacked the defacto complainant with knife, due to which the defacto complainant sustained grevious injury. he would submit that a1 and a2 are arrested and still in custody. the petitioner herein is a4, who attacked the defacto complainant with hands. he would further submit that major allegations were attributed against the main accused and they are still in custody. the petitioner herein has not used any weapon. he would further submit that there is no previous case as against these petitioner.4.having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned government advocate (criminal side) for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.5.accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned judicial magistrate no.ii, alandur, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of rs.15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only) each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intend to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that: [a] the.....

Full Judgment

CRL OP NO. 310 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09-01-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRL OP NO. 310 of 2025 Jesu Raj petitioner(s) Vs The State by its. The Inspector Of Police T-14, Pallikaranai Police Station, Chennai - 600 100. Respondent(s) For petitioner(s): Ganeshkumar S. For Respondent(s): S.Santhosh Government Advocate (criminal Side).

ORDER

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.798 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023, the present petition has been filed seeking anticipatory bail.

2.Pleading innocence on the part of the petitioner, false implication in this case, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this court. He would submit that he is innocent and no way connected with this case. He would further submit that he is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. 3.The case of the prosecution as putforth by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, opposing for grant of anticipatory bail, is that the petitioner, the defacto complainant and all other accused are working as delivery person in Zepto Delivery Company. On the date of occurrence all the accused went to the theatre to watch a movie, where A2 and the defacto complainant had wordy quarrel, due to which A1, A2 and A4 attacked the defacto complainant with hands and A3 attacked the defacto complainant with knife, due to which the defacto complainant sustained grevious injury. He would submit that A1 and A2 are arrested and still in custody. The petitioner herein is A4, who attacked the defacto complainant with hands. He would further submit that major allegations were attributed against the main accused and they are still in custody. The petitioner herein has not used any weapon. He would further submit that there is no previous case as against these petitioner.

4.Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

5.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Alandur, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intend to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that: [a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of his Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on every day at 10.30 a.m., until further orders; [c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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]; [f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

09-01-2025 ah To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Alandur 2.The Inspector of Police, T-14, Pallikaranai Police Station, Chennai - 600 100. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

ah CRL OP NO.310 of 2025 09.01.2025

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial