Rajendra Prasad v. State Represented By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Rajendra Prasad ... Petitioner Vs.

State, Represented by The Inspector of Police, AWPS Melmaruvathur Police Station, Chengalpattu District.

(Crime No.13 of 2026) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.13 of 2026 on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Anbazhagan For Respondent : Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 69, 318(2), 318(4) and 351(2) of BNS r/w Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 2002 in Crime No.13 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

1/6

2. The case of the prosecution is that A1, on the false promise of marrying the de facto complainant, induced her to enter into a physical relationship with him. It is alleged that, as a consequence thereof, the de facto complainant conceived and subsequently gave birth to a child. It is further alleged that A1, along with the present petitioner, criminally intimidated the de facto complainant and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, the present complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions. 2/6

6. From the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and the materials available on record, it is seen that there are two accused in the present case. The petitioner herein is arrayed as A2 and is the brother of A1. According to the prosecution, the de facto complainant was in a relationship with A1 and, out of the said relationship, a child was born. However, insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, the only overt act attributed to him is that of criminal intimidation. It is further seen that the First Information Report came to be registered on 12.04.2026. Taking into consideration the nature of the allegations and the limited role attributed to the petitioner, namely the offence of criminal intimidation, this Court is of the firm view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to 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 (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Maduranthagam on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), 3/6

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 daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation; (d) 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];

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

04.06.2026 kv 4/6

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate-II, Maduranthagam.

2.The Inspector of Police, AWPS Melmaruvathur Police Station, Chengalpattu District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 5/6

C.KUMARAPPAN.J.

kv 04.06.2026 6/6