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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Yuvaraj ..Petitioner Vs State: represented by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Vandalur, Kancheepuram District.

Crime No.3 of 2026.

..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.3 of 2026 pending investigation before the respondent police. For Petitioner:

Mr.S.Suresh For Respondent:

Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 02.02.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 296(b), 75 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.3 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and the petitioner were working in the same company and were in contact through phone and social media. It is alleged that the petitioner promised to marry the defacto complainant and during a video call, she exposed herself believing the promise. Subsequently, the petitioner refused to marry her and allegedly threatened to upload the video and harm her. Hence, the case was registered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has not committed any offence as alleged. It is submitted that even according to the prosecution, the occurrence took place on 14.11.2024, whereas the FIR was registered only on 22.01.2026, which shows inordinate delay. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are of similar age and the relationship was consensual in nature. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been in incarceration since 02.02.2026. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature involving sexual offence and threat. It is further submitted that the petitioner induced the defacto complainant under promise of marriage and later refused. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6. From the submission of the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that it is seen that the occurrence is of the year 2024 but the FIR was registered only on 22.01.2026. It is also seen that the petitioner has been in incarceration since 02.02.2026 and both the petitioner and the defacto complainant are of similar age. While looking into the allegations, though it appears to be serious, considering the delay in registration of FIR, nature of allegations and the long incarceration, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, and subject to the following conditions: [a] the sureties shall affix their 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 their identity;

[b] the petitioner is directed to stay at Sivagangai and report before the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sivagangai twice a day at 10.30 a.m. and 05.30 p.m. for a period of 15 days and thereafter appear before the respondent police as and when required.

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[f] if the petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

18-03-2026 NSL Note:

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur.

2. The District Jail, Chengalpattu.

3. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Vandalur, Kancheepuram District.

4. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sivagangai.

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

NSL 18-03-2026