E.Akash Vs The State, Rep. by - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1419174
CourtChennai Orders High Court
Decided OnJan-30-2026
Case NumberCRL OP/2035/2026
JudgeHonourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar
AppellantE.Akash
RespondentThe State, Rep. by
Excerpt:
in the high court of judicature at madrasdated: 30.01.2026coramthe honourable mr justice k.rajasekar e.akash ... petitionerversusthe state rep by its, the inspector of police, (crime no.521 of 2025) .. respondent prayer:- criminal original petition filed under section 482 of b.n.s.s., to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in crime no.521 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. for petitioner : mr.v.dinesh for respondent : m/s.j.r.archana government advocate (crl.side)orderthe petitioner, who apprehends arrest by the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 296(b), 118(1) and 351(3) of bns act, 2023 in crime no.521 of 2025 registered on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.2. the allegation against the petitioner is that he joined hands withother two accused attacked the defacto complainant and two others indiscriminately and caused injuries to them. hence, the case has been registered against the petitioner.3. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted thatdue to previous enmity, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. he further submitted that the majority of the offences are under section 181 of bns, and hence prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.4. the learned government advocate (crl.side) appearing for therespondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner is having 10 previous cases pending against him and that the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant using knife. hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.5. heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned government advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record.6. considering the nature of the allegations, the fact that the petitioner wielded a weapon and attacked the defacto complainant and his friend, and that the petitioner has 10 previous cases pending against him, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.7. accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. drl to1. the inspector of police, 2.the public prosecutor, high court, madras.k.rajasekar, j.drl
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR E.Akash ... Petitioner

Versus

The State rep by its, The Inspector of Police, (Crime No.521 of 2025) .. Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.521 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Dinesh For Respondent : M/s.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS Act, 2023 in Crime No.521 of 2025 registered on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he joined hands with

other two accused attacked the defacto complainant and two others indiscriminately and caused injuries to them. Hence, the case has been registered against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

due to previous enmity, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the majority of the offences are under Section 181 of BNS, and hence prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner is having 10 previous cases pending against him and that the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant using knife. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the nature of the allegations, the fact that the petitioner wielded a weapon and attacked the defacto complainant and his friend, and that the petitioner has 10 previous cases pending against him, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. drl To

1. The Inspector of Police, 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

drl