R.Mathaiyan, v. State Rep By It'S, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.06.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR R.Mathaiyan ... Petitioner Vs.

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

... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.13 of 2025 on the file of respondent Police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.N.Saravanakumar For Respondent :

Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences under Sections 69, 318(2), 296(b), 115(2) and 351(2) of BNS and Section 4 of the TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 in Crime No.13 of 2025, on the file of the respondent, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on the false promise of marriage, 1/6

the accused/petitioner had a physical relationship with the de facto complainant. However, when the de facto complainant insisted the petitioner to marry her, he abused her in filthy language, assaulted her and refused to marry her. Hence the case.

3. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent and the relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant is consensual, however, a false complaint has been given against him only due to a misunderstanding. He also submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and the de facto complainant has now been amicably settled and both the parties are willing to live together as husband and wife. He further submitted that the de facto complainant is also not inclined to proceed with the case against the petitioner. He also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for the grant of anticipatory bail.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing 2/6

on either sides and taking note of the nature of the allegations, this Court finds that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain 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 learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thirupathur, 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

[a] if the petitioner fails to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, 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 the identity proofs to ensure their identity;

[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and 3/6

thereafter as and when required;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial and he shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; [e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de facto complainant and witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;; [f] the petitioner to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard; [g] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned 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)13 SCC 283];

[h] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

27.06.2025 ham 4/6

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thirupathur.

2. The Inspector of Police, Tirupattur All Women Police Station, Tirupattur.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

ham 27.06.2025 6/6