Manoj Kumar Lunawat v. Home, Prohibition The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police,Nd Excise Department
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.10.2025 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR and Crl.M.P.No.18042 of 2025
1. Manoj Kumar Lunawat
2. Snehalatha Lunawat
3. Rohit Lunawat
4. Rahul Lunawat ... Petitioners -vsState Rep by, The Inspector of Police, G1 - Vepery Police Station, Chennai.
(Crime No.446 of 2025) ... Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent police in Crime No.446 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners :
Mr.A.Kripakaran For Respondent :
Mr.S.Udayakumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervenor :
M/s.Ramya Subramanian for Mr.J.Prajoy ********** 1/7
ORDER
The petitioners, who were apprehends arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 318(2) & 108 of BNS (417 & 306 of IPC), in Crime No.446 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the father of the deceased / lady in this case. The deceased and the 1st accused have known each other and they were in love, subsequently they informed their families about their relationship, the families met and they decided to get them married and they performed the engagement of the deceased and the 1st accused on 09.02.2025 at Cream Center, Anna Nagar and they have fixed the marriage to be held on 30.11.2025 and while being so they were in intimate relationship for some time and subsequently, they have developed some difference of opinion and misunderstanding and the 1st accused had told that he does not want to marry the deceased. On 23.08.2025 deceased went to the house of accused, where including the petitioners who are close friends of Accused No.1. All the accused joined together and abused her and also threatened her that they would made public, some of the intimate photographs of the couple. Unable to bear the insult, she had committing suicide by jumping out of the building. 2/7
3. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and already Accused No.1 released on bail by this Court and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that there was totally six accused and they have threatened the victim girl, which resulted the victim girl committed suicide. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. The learned counsel for the Intervenor submits that A1 and A2 are close friends, and the petitioners were moved closely with the couple and after sometime, these petitioners started blackmailing the victim, that they would release the intimate photographs of the couple in online and also threatened her with dire consequences. In this regard the learned counsel also produce the Dairy entries made by the deceased and also Whatsapp chats.
6. Considering the facts that these petitioners are relatives of Accused No.1, with whom the betrothal ceremony of the deceased taken place, the major allegation in this case is against A1 and his friend/A2 who have threatened the victim girl and also abused her. Further the allegation against the petitioners 3/7
herein that they are abated the other accused and supported the other accused. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore at Chennai, on condition that the petitioners 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:
(a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;
(b) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders; (c) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (d) the petitioners shall not abscond either during 4/7
investigation or trial;
(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action 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 Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and;
(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. (g) consequently the connected criminal miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.10.2025 (1/2) rna Note :
1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.
2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have 5/7
a QR code.
To 1.The II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore at Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Police, G1 - Vepery Police Station, Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
6/7
K. RAJASEKAR, J.
rna and Crl.M.P.No.18042 of 2025 06.10.2025 (1/2) 7/7