Ramarajan v. State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.3212 of 2026 Ramarajan ... Petitioner Vs.

State Rep. by the, Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thiruthani, Thiruvallur District.

Crime No.0006 of 2026 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. r/w 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.0006 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.P.Muthamizh Selvakumar For Respondent :

Ms.J.R.Archana, Government Advocate (Criminal Side).

O R D E R

The petitioner herein apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 376(2)(n) of IPC, in Crime No.0006 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

1/6

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he promised to marry the victim, a lady aged about 26 years, and on the strength of such promise, had a physical relationship with her. Subsequently, he refused to marry her and started avoiding her. Hence, the present case,

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relationship between the petitioner and the victim was purely consensual and that, due to differences of opinion, they could not proceed with the marriage. It is contended that there was no false promise to marry for the purpose of establishing a physical relationship, and that the dispute arose only thereafter, which has led to the registration of the present case. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the FIR has been registered only recently and the investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record.

2/6

6. This Court has also considered the submissions made and the materials placed before it. It is seen that the petitioner and the victim were in a relationship for several years, and the petitioner has not come forward to marry her. Considering the nature of the allegations and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. Hence, 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 of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Pallipattu, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition that:

[a] if the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

3/6

[b] the sureties shall affix his photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure his identity;

[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30.a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[d] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned 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)13 SCC 283];

[e] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. [f] The petitioner shall cooperate with the medical examination, if required.

11.02.2026 kmm 4/6

To

1. The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Pallipattu.

2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thiruthani, Thiruvallur District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

kmm Crl.O.P.No.3212 of 2026 11.02.2026 6/6