Syed Ibrahim v. State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Syed Ibrahim ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, K-8 Arumbakkam AWPS Chennai - 600014.

2. The Inspector of Police AWPS, Kelambakkam.

(R2 is suomotu impleaded as per the order of this court dated 13.05.2026 in Crl.OP.No.12442 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) Safa Mariam (Permitted to intervene vide order dated 09.06.2026 in Crl.MP.9003/2026 in Crl.OP.No.12442/2026) ..Intervener(s) Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to pass an order enlarging the petitioner in the event of arrest on anticipatory bail pending investigation in Crime No. Not Known of 2026 on the file of the Respondent police and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances.

For Petitioner(s):

Ms.P.Harsha Vardhini For Respondent(s):

Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For Intervener(s) Mr.P.Pugalenthi

ORDER

The petitioner, apprehending arrest for the alleged offences under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002, in Crime No. Not Known of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, under the guise of a false marriage assurance, had sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant. It is further alleged that the petitioner borrowed Rs.13 Lakhs from her under the pretext of developing his business, thereby inducing and cheating her. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent of the allegations and has been falsely implicated. He submitted that the defacto complainant worked as a manager in a company run by the petitioner's father, and their relationship was entirely consensual. He further stated that the petitioner actually intended to marry her, but the current

complaint was registered before any arrangements could be formalised. He submitted that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen, is ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Court, and will fully cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the intervening petitioner / defacto complainant vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. He submitted that the defacto complainant joined a Revlon outlet as an employee, where the petitioner, Syed Ibrahim, who is the son of the company's owner, confessed his love to her within a few days. He contended that by exploiting this relationship and under the false promise of marriage, the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her and dishonestly borrowed a sum of Rs.13 Lakhs. Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police also opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, reiterating the prosecution case. He submitted that the FIR was registered in Crime No. 8 of 2026 on 07.05.2026. He argued that the petitioner intentionally induced the defacto complainant through a fraudulent promise to marry, extorted her money, maintained a physical relationship, and has now outright refused to marry her.

6. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the

learned counsel on either side.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the relationship between the parties commenced early in the year 2017 and was largely consensual in nature. Admittedly, the FIR came to be registered after a long delay, only in the year 2026. Taking into consideration the long-standing consensual nature of the relationship and the fact that the dispute also involves financial transactions, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required at the first instance. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

8. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the copy of this order is made ready, before the Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:

(a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) 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 identify proofs to ensure their identity;

(c) The petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of one month and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

(d) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (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 actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(f) If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act;

09-06-2026 (2/2) Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Jeni

To 1.The Additional Mahila Court, Egmore.

2.The Inspector of Police, K-8 Arumbakkam AWPS, Chennai - 600014. 3.The Inspector of Police, AWPS, Kelambakkam. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

Jeni 09-06-2026 (2/2)