Madhan Sundaram v. The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Madhan Sundram ... Petitioner Vs.

The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thirumangalam, Anna Nagar, Chennai-40.

... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., and 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners herein on bail in the event of their arrest in PRC.No.29 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur in connection with Crime No.15 of 2023 on the file of the respondent Police.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan For Respondent : Mr. P. Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervener : Mr.Hemanth Raj T

O R D E R

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 417 and 354 of IPC and Section 4 of Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act in PRC No.29 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur in connection with the Crime No.15 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

1/5

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused, on the false promise of marrying the defacto complainant, induced her and had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions and thereafter, refused to marry the defacto complainant. When the defacto complainant asked the petitioner about the same, the petitioner abused her in filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is entitled for an anticipatory bail in furtherance of the order of this Court for cancellation. He would further submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

2/5

5. From the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, it is seen that the learned counsel for the intervener would submit that, if at all the petitioner has any grievance, he ought to have approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by way of an appropriate application challenging the order of cancellation of bail, and that filing the present application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that a proclamation order has been issued against the petitioner and, in support of the same, he has produced the e-Courts Daily Status, which is extracted hereunder:- "Accused A2 to A4 are appearance dispensed with and Crl.M.P.No.1858 of 2025 is dismissed as not pressed and Crl.M.P.No.

2009 of 2025 is allowed and order passed proclamation requiring the appear of accused A1 and for filing proof and Paper Publication call on 27.04.2026." Hence, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar reported in (2024) 12 SCC 382, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail, as he has continuously defied the orders of the Court and remained absconding. Therefore, the present anticipatory bail petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had taken certain steps and that such actions may not have 3/5

any bearing on the present petition.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 27.04.2026 kv To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur.

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thirumangalam, Anna Nagar, Chennai-40.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 4/5

C.KUMARAPPAN.J.

kv 27.04.2026 5/5