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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Sarathkumar, D No.4/188, Kalandiyur Kattuvalavu, Nariyanoor, Pallipatti, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.

...Petitioner/Accused

Vs The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Mettur All Women Police Station, Salem District.

(Crime No.9 of 2026)

...Respondent/

Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.9 of 2026 on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioner:

Mr. Deepak Kumar C For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 115(1) and 75(3) of BNS and Section 4 of the TNPHW Act in Crime No.09 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, in an inebriated condition, abused the de-facto complainant's second wife in filthy language and molested her. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the de-facto complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submitted that the petitioner is the grandson of the de-facto complainant. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation. 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 investigation is still pending. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire allegation is a false allegation; that the de-facto complainant is the grandfather of the petitioner and only upon the instigation of the de-facto complainant, a false FIR has been registered against the petitioner. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the investigation is still pending and the allegation against the petitioner is serious in nature.

7. Considering the stage of the investigation, this Court is of the firm view that this is not an appropriate stage to consider the anticipatory bail. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 09-04-2026 dk

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate - II, Mettur.

2. The Inspector of Police, Mettur All Women Police Station, Salem District.

3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

dk CRL OP No. 9022 of 2026 09-04-2026