Bazid Malik v. The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep.By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD) NO. 17310 of 2025 Bazid Malik ..Petitioner Vs 1.State Of Tamilnadu, Rep By The Inspector Of Police, All Women Police Station, Oddanchatram, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.28 of 2025) 2.Nagananthini Respondent(s) (R2 is suo motu impleaded as per order of this Court dated 27.10.2025.) For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.S.Manoj (for R1) Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Mr.K.Mondila Anand (for R2) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS 1/6

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.28 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 69 and 351(2) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.28 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and the petitioner were in a 'live-in' relationship at Bangalore without being married. Thereafter, A3 refused to accept the relationship and all other accused persons were threatened the defacto complainant and insisted to end up the relationship with the petitioner. Hence, a case was registered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an 2/6

innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He, however, submitted that the petitioner is willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submitted that the petitioner promised to marry the defacto complainant and due to their 'live-in' relationship, the defacto complainant became pregnant and due to the insistence of the petitioner, she underwent abortion and the investigation is going on. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioner refused to marry the defacto complainant, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

3/6

7.Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

05.11.2025 vsg 4/6

To 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Oddanchathiram, Dindigul District.

2. The Inspector Of Police, All Women Police Station, Oddanchatram, Dindigul District.

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

5/6

S.SRIMATHY.J., vsg Crl.O.P.(MD).No.17310 of 2025 Date : 05.11.2025 6/6