Saravanakumar @ Vel Vs State Represented by Inspector of police, Central Crime Branch, - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1494241
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnFeb-10-2026
Case Number/32211/2025
JudgeHonourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar
AppellantSaravanakumar @ Vel
RespondentState Represented by Inspector of police, Central Crime Branch,
Excerpt:
in the high court of judicature at madrasdated: 10-02-2026coramthe hon'ble mr.justice k.rajasekarand crl.m.p.no.163 of 2026 saravanakumar @ vel s/o subbaravalu, no.4/5, valluvar bay, sunrise avneue, kabaleeswarar nagar, neelankarai, chennai-600041. ..petitioner(s) vs. state represented by inspector of police, central ..respondent(s) prayer: to grant anticipatory bail to the above petitioner/accused in crime no.183/2022 on the file and pending investigation before the respondent police and thus render justice. for intervener: mr.i.abrar mohammed abdvillah for mr.v.s.senthilkumar for petitioner(s): k.pradeep raj for respondent(s): m/s.j.r.archana government advocate (crl.side)page1 of 4orderthe petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under sections 406, 420 and 120b ipc in crime no.183 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.2. this court earlier in crl.o.p.no.27807 of 2024, granted anticipatorybail to the petitioner vide order dated 12.12.2024 with certain conditions. subsequently, the petitioner herein approached this court for the very same relief without complying with the condition. hence, this court has not inclined to grant bail. however, it has granted one more week to comply with the condition of deposit of money. accordingly, now the petitioner has complied with the bail condition of deposit of money.3. considering the above factual situation, this court is of the view that the petitioner is directed to comply with the other conditions as ordered by this court. for that purpose, time is extended for one more week.4. further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one of thebail conditions is that the surety produced by the petitioner shall be a blood surety. however, this court, after hearing the parties, is inclined to modify the same to the effect that the petitioner shall submit two sureties, each of rs.10,000/- as ordered by this court, in the earlier crl.o.p.no.27807 of 2024. page2 of 4the other conditions remain intact.5. with the above directions, this petition is closed. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. mpa to 1.state represented by inspector of police, central2. the public prosecutor high court, madras. page3 of 4k.rajasekar, j.mpa page4 of 4
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

and Crl.M.P.No.163 of 2026 Saravanakumar @ Vel S/o Subbaravalu, No.4/5, Valluvar Bay, Sunrise Avneue, Kabaleeswarar Nagar, Neelankarai, Chennai-600041. ..Petitioner(s) Vs. State Represented by Inspector of police, Central ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: To grant Anticipatory Bail to the above petitioner/accused in crime No.183/2022 on the file and pending investigation before the respondent police and thus render justice. For Intervener: Mr.I.Abrar Mohammed Abdvillah for Mr.V.S.Senthilkumar For Petitioner(s): K.Pradeep Raj For Respondent(s): M/S.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

Page1 of 4

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC in Crime No.183 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. This court earlier in Crl.O.P.No.27807 of 2024, granted anticipatory

bail to the petitioner vide order dated 12.12.2024 with certain conditions. Subsequently, the petitioner herein approached this court for the very same relief without complying with the condition. Hence, this court has not inclined to grant bail. However, it has granted one more week to comply with the condition of deposit of money. Accordingly, now the petitioner has complied with the bail condition of deposit of money.

3. Considering the above factual situation, this court is of the view that the petitioner is directed to comply with the other conditions as ordered by this court. For that purpose, time is extended for one more week.

4. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one of the

bail conditions is that the surety produced by the petitioner shall be a blood surety. However, this court, after hearing the parties, is inclined to modify the same to the effect that the petitioner shall submit two sureties, each of Rs.10,000/- as ordered by this court, in the earlier Crl.O.P.No.27807 of 2024. Page2 of 4

The other conditions remain intact.

5. With the above directions, this petition is closed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. MPA To 1.State Represented by Inspector of police, Central

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. Page3 of 4

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

MPA Page4 of 4