Chandran Vijai Kumar v. State Rep Byinspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-02-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL OP NO. 1045 of 2025 Chandran Vijai Kumar S/o Mohan Karunagaran, No.1/99, Church Street, Kilpakkam, Arakkonam, Ranipet District.

Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep By the Inspector Of Police All Women Police Station Arakkonam, Ranipet District (Cr.No.2/2025) Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s): R.Ezhilarasan For Respondent(s): Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 69 and 351(2) of BNS 2023 and Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 2002 in Crime No.2 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

1/6

2.

The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant is that, she is suffering with Muscular dystrophy disease; that she and the petitioner herein are known to each other from the year 2010; that the petitioner knowing well about the health condition of the defacto complainant, expressed his love and by making false promise of marrying her, the petitioner had physical relationship with her for several years, later cheated her. Hence, this case.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case; that the petitioner had never committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution; that it is the case of consensual relationship, considering her health issue, the petitioner had spend several lakhs for her medical treatment; that the parents of the defacto complainant were also not ready to maintain her, hence the defacto complainant filed a case against her parents claiming maintenance in M.C.No.21 of 2023 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Arakkonam; that the aforesaid maintenance case was settled, the petitioner demanded his money back, which he spent for her medical treatment; that aggrieved over the same, the defacto complainant colluded with her parents lodged a false complaint against the petitioner, 2/6

inorder to grab money; that the earlier anticipatory bail application of the petitioner has been filed with Crime No. Not known and the same was dismissed as withdrawn and the present application has been filed with the crime number; and that the petitioner is ready to produce solvent sureties and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and also undertake to appear and to co-operate for the investigation, and prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.

Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, by reiterating the case of the prosecution; that the defacto complainant is aged about 36 years; that there is a love affair between the defacto complainant and the petitioner herein and they were in consensual relationship, later the petitioner refused to marry her; that the petitioner has no previous cases; and that the investigation is pending. 5.

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.

3/6

6.

Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner, submissions made by the learned counsels on either side, the fact that the relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was consensual and since, custodial interrogation is not required, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 7.

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 on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Arakkonam on condition that the petitioner shall execute a separate 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 learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that: [a] 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.

4/6

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on every Monday and Thursday at 10:30 a.m., until further orders.

[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] 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 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]. SUNDER MOHAN, J.

stn [f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR 5/6

can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 10.02.2025 stn To

1. State Rep Byinspector Of Police All Women Police Station Arakkonam, Ranipet District (Cr.No.2/2025).

Crl.O.P. No.1045 of 2025 6/6