Prakash Selvam v. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 31-10-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CRL OP No.29109 of 2025 and Crl MP No.20352 of 2025 Prakash Selvam Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep. by The Inspector of Police AWPS -Central, Coimbatore Police Station, Coimbatore. Crime No. 47/2025.

Respondent(s) PRAYER Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioner/Accused on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.47 of 2025 on the file of the respondent/complainant viz., Inspector of Police, AWPS -Central, Coimbatore Police Station, Coimbatore.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.S Rajesh For Intervenor:

Mr.J.Franklin For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

This petition for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner in connection with Crime No.47 of 2025 registered by the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 416, 406, 506(i) IPC and 296(6) and 351(2) of BNSS Act, 2023.

2.The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was earlier lover of the defacto complainant and subsequently they have separated their relationship due to family circumstances. Thereafter this petitioner married another lady and divorced her and resumed relationship with this petitioner and both had relationship for a longer period. Subsequently, the defacto complainant has also delivered a baby, when she asked the petitioner for arranging marriage, he refused to marry her and the petitioner threatened her and also misused her photographs. Hence, the case. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not caused any mental agony or harassment to the victim and since the victim

has demanded huge money and he was not able to pay the same and further the difference of opinion erupt between the parties, hence he did not married her. 4.The learned counsel for the Intervenor submitted that the petitioner is an habitual offender, as already he has promised to marry another lady namely one Lalitha and cheated her and thereafter he has developed relationship with the victim herein and collected huge amounts from the victim. When she demanded for about their marriage, the petitioner demanded Rs.2 Crore, attacked and also abused her. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent reported that the petitioner has promised to marry the victim girl and after living together for some time and the victim has also delivered a child and thereafter the petitioner started to neglect the victim and failed to marry the victim. He further submitted that the investigation in this case is pending and he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.I have also gone through the FIR and other connected documents and the FIR reveals that the petitioner and the victim lived together from the year 2023 and she had also delivered a child in the year February 2024 and thereafter also they lived together and in the year 2025 there was a difference of opinion, hence she had come forward to lodge the complaint. Considering the age of the victim and other circumstances, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary and hence, I am 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 made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate/Additional Mahila Court Judge, Coimbatore, 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 learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition that: (a) If the petitioner 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 one week 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 accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

31-10-2025 1/2 gbi Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

To 1.State Rep. by The Inspector of Police AWPS -Central, Coimbatore Police Station, Coimbatore. Crime No.

47/2025.

2.The Judicial Magistrate/Additional Mahila Court Judge, Coimbatore.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR J.

gbi CRL OP No. 29109 of 31-10-2025