P Mullaiventhan v. State By Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN P.Mullaiventhan ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Nannilam, Tiruvarur.

(Crime No.13 of 2026) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.13 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sakthivel For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offences punishable under Sections 74 and 75(2) of BNS, in Crime No.13 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

1 / 4

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/accused entered into the house of the de facto complainant and sexually harassed her. Hence the case.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He further submitted that the petitioner and the de facto complainant were in a relationship and due to a misunderstanding, a false complaint has been given against him. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.

Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He further submitted that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is yet to be recorded from the de facto complainant/victim.

5.

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6.

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the nature of allegation and also considering the gravity of 2 / 4

the offence committed by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 30.04.2026 ham To

1. The Judicial Magistrate-cum-District Munsif, Nannilam.

2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Nannilam, Tiruvarur.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

3 / 4

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

ham 30.04.2026 4 / 4