Sarathkumar v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-05-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Sarathkumar ..Petitioner Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Mettur All Women Police Station, Salem District (Crime No.9 of 2026) ..Respondent Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. 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.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioner/accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 115(1), 75(3) of BNS and Section 4 of the TNPHW Act, in connection with the Crime No.9 of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, in an inebriated condition, abused the defacto complainant's second wife in filthy language and molested her. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by reiterating the prosecution case. However, he would submit that no previous cases are pending against the petitioner and that no one had sustained any injury in the occurrence.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions made on either side, no one had sustained any injury in the occurrence and also the fact that no previous cases are pending against the petitioner, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following 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 on which the order copy made ready, before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur, on
condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: [a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation. [b] the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; [c] the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the 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)AIR SCW 5560].
[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.2023.
13-05-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order LPP To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur.
2.The Inspector of Police Mettur All Women Police Station, Salem District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
P.DHANABAL J.
LPP 13-05-2026