Dismissed¶29

T. Jabakumar v. State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police

Madras HC19 Jan 2026CRL OP/438/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (K. Rajasekar J., 19-01-2026) dismisses anticipatory bail petition CRL OP 438/2026 in Cr.No. 548/2025, M-6 Manali PS: BNS Sections 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 125, 309(4), 311, 351(3); knife-point taking of Rs. 5,000 and mobile phone; no injury per FIR; property not recovered; petitioner has 24 previous cases including two murder cases; A2/A3 already on bail.

What did the court decide?

On careful perusal of the FIR, the Court found it to be a case of no injury: the petitioner is alleged to have threatened the de facto complainant and taken away Rs. 5,000 in cash and a cell phone. ¶25

T. Jabakumar Vs State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CRL OP No. 438 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19-01-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

CRL OP No. 438 of 2026

¶7

T. Jabakumar S/o. Therraravaian, No.121, 3rd Unit Madhavaram, Tiruvallur, Tamilnadu -600051

¶8

Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, M-6, Manali Police Station, Chennai. (Cr.No. 548/2025)

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

PRAYER

¶13

To enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest pending investigation in P.S. Cr.No. 548/2025 on the file of the Respondent police.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Arungandhi G

¶15

For Respondent(s): M/S.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police

¶18

for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 115(2), 125, 309(4), 311, 351(3) of BNS in Crime No. 548 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

CRL OP No. 438 of 2026

¶21

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, along with

¶22

two other accused, waylaid the de facto complainant and, at knife-point, taken away Rs. 5,000 in cash and a mobile phone from him, and thereafter threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the case has been registered.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, since the petitioner has some bad antecedents, he has been falsely implicated in this case and no one was injured in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and, therefore, prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶24

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner has 24 previous cases and the investigation is pending, and that A2 and A3 have already been arrested and released on bail. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶25

Having heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record, on careful perusal of the FIR it is revealed that it is a case of no injury and it is alleged that the petitioner threatened the de facto complainant and took away Rs. 5,000 in cash and a cell phone. Considering the

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

CRL OP No. 438 of 2026

¶28

fact that the property has not been recovered and that the petitioner has 24 previous cases, including two murder cases, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is

¶29

dismissed.

¶30

19-01-2026

¶31

Mpa Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶32

¶33

1.State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, M-6, Manali Police Station, Chennai. (Cr.No. 548/2025)

¶34

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

¶35