← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP/13230/2026granted

R.Dharani v. State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

2026-06-17Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN R.Dharani No.18, varaiyar nagar, Pichanur gudiyatham, Gudiyathamthalukka, Gudiyatham Post office, Vellore District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep by the Inspector of Police Vadapalani All Women Police Station (W-27), Chennai District.

(Crime No.04 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest by the Respondent Police in Crime No.04 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.R.Saravanapandiyan For Respondent(s):

MR.N.PALANIVEL, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE)

ORDER

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 69 and 318(4) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.04 of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, namely Madhavi Latha, daughter of Thiyagarajan, lodged a complaint stating that A1 and the defacto complainant are college students and are pursuing their studies, during which a friendship developed between them. While so, the relationship was further developed into a romantic relationship, which lead to a sexual relationship. Further, the defacto complainant stated that at the time of meeting her, A1 wilfully deceived and cheated her. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.2. The petitioner is the father of A1. The petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, it would affect the prosecution case. Hence, he 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. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.

7. From the submissions on either side, it is seen thata case has been registered against the petitioner under Sections 69 and 318(4) of BNS, 2023. The allegation against the petitioner is that his son (A1) had a relationship with the defacto complainant, on the false promise of marriage. The defacto complainant is a major. A perusal of the FIR it reveals that the alleged occurrence took place between 20.11.2024 and 27.01.2025, however, the FIR came to be registered only on 26.02.2026, after a lapse of morethan one year. From the narration of FIR, it is seen that the relationship between A1 and defacto complainant was initially consensual. The petitioner herein is the father of A1. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.

Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge anticipatory bail to the petitioner. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the Intervenor submitted that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may intimidate the defacto complainant.

deems it appropriate to impose a condition directing the petitioner to stay away from his residence.

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 order copy is made ready, before the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai District, 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 annexeds 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 is directed to stay at Coimbatore Town, for a period of two weeks;

(d) The petitioner shall report and sign before the Inspector of Police, Coimbatore Town Police Station, everyday at 10.30 a.m. and thereafter, shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation;

(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.

17-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order AH To 1.The Inspector of Police, W-27, AWPS Vadapalani, Chennai District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Coimbatore Town Police Station, Coimbatore.

3.The XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai District.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

AH 17-06-2026