Dhilip Kumar v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24.11.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.Nos.32020 of 2025 Dhilip Kumar ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Tamilnadu, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, KVR Nagar, Tiruppur District.

... Respondent Cr.No.16 of 2025 PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in Spl.SC.No.172 of 2025 pending trial on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur. For Petitioner : Mr.M.N.Balakrishnan For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 10.10.2025 for an offences punishable under Sections 318, 64(2)(h), 49, 296(b), 115(2), 351(3) of BNS and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 in Crime No.70 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks bail.

1/5

2. The prosecution case is that due to illegal intimacy between the defacto complainant and the petitioner/A1, the defacto complainant became pregnant. On 15.08.2025 at about 11.00 p.m., there was a wordy quarrel between the defacto complainant and the petitioner, pursuant to which the petitioner called A2. Accordingly, A2 came to the spot, quarreled with the defacto complainant, and misbehaved with her. At that time, A1 allegedly assaulted her with a stick and threatened her to comply with the demands made by A2, which led to the registration of the FIR. Hence, the present case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and that he has no connection with the alleged crime. He further submitted that the coaccused was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2025 in Crl.O.P.No.31863 of 2025 and that the petitioner has been in custody since 10.10.2025. He also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and, therefore, sought grant of bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the 2/5

investigation is still pending. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. I have heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the nature of the allegations, the gravity of the offence, and the fact that the investigation is still pending, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 24.11.2025 Vv To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Omalur 2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, KVR Nagar, Tiruppur District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

3/5

K. RAJASEKAR ,J.

Vv Crl.O.P.Nos.32020 of 2025 24.11.2025 4/5