Stephen Raj v. The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-01-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Stephen Raj Petitioner(s) Vs The State rep by The Inspector of Police W-17, All Women Peravellore Police Station, Chennai District.
Crime No.21/2025.
Respondent(s) PRAYER This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent pending investigation in W-17 ALL WOMAN POLICE PERAVALLORE in Cr. No.21 of 2025.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.P.Krishna Moorthy For Respondent(s):
Ms.J.R.Archana, GA (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 69 of BNS in connection with the Cr.No.21 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner had physical relationship with the defacto complainant and later he developed sexual relationship with another woman and refused to marry the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person, and he has been falsely implicated in this case by the respondent police and ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution's case and on instruction submitted that the investigation in this case is still pending and opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, the petitioner and the defacto complainant had lived together some period and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary for interrogation, 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 Additional Mahila Metropolitan Magistrate at Egmore Court 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 that: [a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am., for a period three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. [b] the petitioner shall cooperate for medical examination if any required. [c] the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
[d] the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;
[e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [f] 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].
[g] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.2023.
09-01-2026 jai To 1.The Inspector of Police W-17, All Women Peravellore Police Station, Chennai District.
2. The Additional Mahila Metropolitan Magistrate at Egmore Court.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
K.RAJASEKAR J.
jai 09-01-2026