Dr M. Sreeniketan v. The State Rep.By Inspector Of Police

CRL OP NO.205 of 2025

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28-01-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRL OP NO.205 of 2025 Dr.M.Sreeniketan, S/o. Dr. Murugadoss, 193/145 A, Pollachi Main Road, Sundarapuram, Coimbatore - 641 024.

Petitioner(s) Vs.

State Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, (Central), Coimbatore. (Crime No.54 of 2024) Respondent(s) For petitioner(s): Mr. R. John Sathyan,Senior Counsel, for Mr. Dayalu Sureshkumar.

For Intervenor(s): Mr. Dhanaram Ramachandran Tanary Hazari For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Santhosh, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in Crime No.54 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant met the petitioner on 27.04.2022, through the "Adiyoga Alliance" matrimonial website,

a platform for Isha meditators. The de-facto complainant claims that the petitioner promised to marry her, engaged in a physical relationship, and later withdrew his promise, leaving her emotionally and physically vulnerable. After confronting the petitioner about suspected infidelity, the de-facto complainant discovered his secret engagement to one Lavanya Natarajan, on September 16, 2024. The de-facto complainant alleges deception, physical assault and threats. Hence, this case.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a case of a consensual sexual relationship between two consenting adults, which has been falsely projected as false assurance and rape. He further submits that the petitioner met the de-facto complainant through the "Adiyoga Alliance" center's matrimonial website, and even according to the de-facto complainant, the petitioner had taken steps to arrange a marriage through family members in the year 2022, after which she continued the relationship. He also submits that the contentions of the First Information Report does not disclose that the petitioner assured the de-facto complainant with the intention of satisfying his lust. Instead, it is a case where the relationship continued for two years, during which, they travelled to various places. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police opposed for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He

states that the petitioner had introduced himself through a matrimonial website through Isha's "Adiyoga Alliance" center and later by giving false assurance, engaged in sexual intercourse with her on several occasions, taking her to various hotels and places. He cheated the de-facto complainant in this manner. There are no previous cases pending against the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the intervenor/de-facto complainant submits that the petitioner met the de-facto complainant through the matrimonial website and induced her into a sexual relationship under the false assurance of marriage. He had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions at several places and hotels. Later, the petitioner refused to marry the de-facto complainant. Hence, he vehemently objects to grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record, including the statement recorded under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S), accordingly, taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the fact that the petitioner has no previous case pending against him, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions and 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

of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Additional Mahila Court (Magistrate Level), Coimbatore District, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or the Police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate, on further condition that:

[a] if the petitioner fails to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, this Order shall stand automatically cancelled;

[b] 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 their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police on everyday at 10:30 A.M., until further orders; [d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during the investigation or during the trial; [e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during the investigation or during the trial;

[f] 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 was 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] [g] If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be

registered under Section 269 of BNS.

28.01.2025 (1/2) klt To State Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, (Central), Coimbatore. (Crime No.54 of 2024)

A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

klt CRL.OP. No. 205 of 2025 28.01.2025 (1/2)