G Naveenkumar v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14-11-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
1. G Naveenkumar Son of Gandhi, Kamaraj Nagar, Maravadi Post, Dharmapuri Tk and Dt.
Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The State rep by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Palacode, Dharmapuri Dt Crime No.22 of 2025 Respondent(s) PRAYER To enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Cr.No.22 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police For Petitioner(s):
Saritha Sivakumar For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 69 of BNS, 2023 in Crime No. 22 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is known to the defacto complainant and developed a relationship with her. Thereafter, he had a sexual relationship with her by promising to marry her. When she demanded marriage, the petitioner refused, hence a complaint has been lodged.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant; they are only friends, and a false complaint has been lodged against him. Hence prays to grant anticipatory bail.
4. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the petitioner developed a relationship with the victim, and they lived together for nearly 1 1⁄2 years. When she demanded marriage, the petitioner demanded various articles, and since she was unable to meet his demands, he refused to marry her. He further submitted that after registration of the FIR, the de facto complainant has
been continuously receiving threatening calls, and if bail is granted, he will indulge in similar activities. Hence opposed to grant anticipatory bail. 5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that an FIR was registered recently, and the investigation in this case is pending. Hence, opposed to grant anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the fact that both the petitioner and the defacto complainant are aged about 28 years, and the allegations in the FIR revealed that they lived together for some time, I am of the view that the investigation of this nature does not require custodial interrogation. Hence, I am 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 (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palacode, 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 condition:
(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 petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on 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 accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.
(f) The petitioner shall not be involved in threatening or
entering the jurisdictional limit where the victim lady resides. (g) The petitioner shall cooperate for investigation including for the medical examination.
14-11-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes mpa To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Palacode.
2.The State rep by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Palacode, Dharmapuri Dt Crime No.22 of 2025 3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.
K.RAJASEKAR J.
mpa CRL OP No. 20591 of 14-11-2025