Sridhar Siva Kumar v. State,Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.06.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Sridhar Siva Kumar ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.13855 of 2026 1.Siva Kumar Chandran 2.Latha Sivakumar ... Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.13856 of 2026 Vs.
The State represented by The Inspector of Police, W-34, All Women Police Station, Kattukupam, Ennore, Tiruvallur District.
(Crime No.156 of 2026) ... Respondent COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioners anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.156 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.M.J.Srinivas For Respondent : Mrs.R.S.Indira, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/6
C O M M O N O R D E R The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 75(2) and 115(2) of BNS and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, in Crime No.156 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, and seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the son of the petitioners/A2 and A3 in Crl.O.P.No.13856 of 2026, namely Sridhar Siva Kumar (A1 in Crl.O.P.No.13855 of 2026), had a relationship with the de facto complainant and had sexual intercourse with her on 02.06.2025 on the promise of marriage. It is further alleged that the petitioners / A2 and A3 grabbed the mobile phone of the de facto complainant and formatted the same on 20.04.2026. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and that they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 2/6
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police opposed the anticipatory bail application and would contend that A1 had a relationship with the de facto complainant and made a false promise to marry her. However, A1 has now refused to marry the de facto complainant. A2 and A3 are the parents of A1.
5. Taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances and the nature of the allegation, namely that the relationship was consensual at its inception, this Court is of the firm view that, at this length of time, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required and is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions.
6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate 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:
3/6
(a) If the petitioners fails to surrender before the concerned 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent police twice a day at 10.30 a.m. and 05.30 p.m. until further orders;
(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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 petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 05.06.2026 cda 4/6
To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Police, W-34, All Women Police Station, Kattukupam, Ennore, Tiruvallur District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
5/6
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
cda 05.06.2026 6/6