Karthik v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Sipcot
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 29.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Karthik
...Petitioner/Accused
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Manamadurai Sivagangai.
(Crime No. 91 of 2026)
...Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senthilkumar Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.I.Murugesan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 91 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
1/7
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 294(b) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No. 91 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant had separated from her husband. The petitioner approached the defacto complainant, by making false promise to marry her, due to which they had sexual relationship. Now, the petitioner abused the defacto complainant and criminally intimidated her. Since the petitioner has refused to marry the complainant, she attempted to commit suicide. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted 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. He submitted that the defacto complainant is married and hence, it is not possible to the petitioner to 2/7
marry her and hence, there is no false promise to marry her. He submitted that the complainant aged about 24 years and she was aware of the consensual relationship. Hence, he prayed to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that since the petitioner refused to marry the complainant, she committed suicide by consuming pesticides, due to which a case has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 294(b) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No. 91 of 2026. He submitted that injured was discharged from the hospital. He submitted that the investigation is pending and 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 the defacto complainant is having husband and injured was 3/7
discharged from the hospital, I am of the view that custodial interrogation is not necessary in this case and hence, 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 bail in the event of arrest or on his/her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai, 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 Judicial Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation. [c] the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall subject himself for medical examination, if it is 4/7
required for the purpose of investigation.
[d] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature.
[e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[f] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [g] 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].
[h] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
29.06.2026 apd 5/7
To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai.
2.The Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Manamadurai Sivagangai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
K.RAJASEKAR, J apd
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 12708 of 2026 Date : 29.06.2026 7/7