Arunkumar v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Awps-Cantonment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 09.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Arunkumar

...Petitioner/Accused

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, AWPS-Contonment Police Station Trichy.

(Crime No. 4 of 2025 )

...Respondent

For Petitioner : Mr..Deepak Kumar Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 4 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/6

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 318(2) and 318(4) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No. 4 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the defacto complainant developed their relationship through social media plotforms and on the strength of the same, the petitioner promised to marry the defacto complainant and engaged in a physical relationship and thereafter, refused to marry the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prayed to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit 2/6

that based on the complaint given by the victim, a case has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(2) and 318(4) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No. 4 of 2025. He further submits that the petitioner has no previous case. He would further submit that the offences are grave in nature and hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner and considering the facts that though the FIR has been registered in the year 2025, so far the respondent police have not taken any steps to secure the accused and no previous case is pending against the petitioner, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties 3/6

each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Trichy, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders; [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature.

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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].

4/6

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

(P D B J) 09.04.2026 apd To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Trichy. 2.The Inspector of Police, AWPS-Contonment Police Station Trichy.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J apd

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 6559 of 2026 Date : 09.04.2026 6/6