M.Baranidharan v. The State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN M.Baranidharan ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station Nannilam, Tiruvarur District.

Crime No. 06 of 2026.

..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023 to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest or on his appearance before any court in connection with the case in Crime No. 06 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the Respondent Police.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.D.Lakshmipathy For Respondent(s):

Mr.P.Dhileepan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 318(ii), 318(a) and 351(3) of BNS and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 in Crime No.6 of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a love affair between the

petitioner and the de facto complainant and based on a false promise that the petitioner will marry the de facto complainant, he had a physical relationship with her and when the de facto complainant approached the petitioner to marry her, the petitioner threatened her with dire consequences and failed to marry her. Thereby, committed the aforesaid offences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and is ready to co-operate with the investigation and also ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent police while opposing the anticipatory bail to the petitioner reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that due to the relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant, the de facto complainant became pregnant.

5. From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), the prosecution case is that due to the relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, the defacto complainant had become pregnant. When the de facto complainant went to petitioner's residence to seek justice, the petitioner's family have assaulted them and threatened them with dire consequences. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the matter and

also the right of the women and also that the de facto complainant is pregnant, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition stands dismissed. 05-03-2026 rap To

1. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station Nannilam, Tiruvarur District.

2. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Valangaiman.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

rap 05-03-2026