Vinothkumar v. The State Rep.By Its,

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 69 of B.N.S., in Crime No.20 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. Page2 of 6

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the de facto complainant had been in a consensual relationship since 2022. During this time, the petitioner allegedly promised to marry the de facto complainant; however, he subsequently married another woman, Roshini, on 16.04.2026. Hence, the complaint.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the prosecution's contention is accepted for the sake of argument, the relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant was entirely consensual. She further submits that given the consensual nature of the relationship, custodial interrogation is unnecessary. Hence, she prays for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned counsel for the intervenor strongly opposes the petitioner's contentions and submits that the petitioner deceived the de facto complainant with a false promise of marriage, thereby engaging in a relationship with her. She further submits that the petitioner is now refusing to marry the defacto complainant and that if he is enlarged on bail, it will prejudice the prosecution's case. Page3 of 6

¶5The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there are no adverse antecedents against the petitioner. However, she opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶6I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶7From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is amply clear that the relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant was initially consensual in nature, and both parties were majors, aged 29 years and 32 years and further the relationship was consensual at the initial stage, that the FIR was registered only upon the petitioner's refusal to marry, and considering that the petitioner has since married one Roshini on

16.04.2026, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required at this stage. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions.

¶8Accordingly, 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 is made ready, before the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore on condition that the petitioner shall execute a Page4 of 6 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 conditions:

(a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;

(c) The petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of fifteen days and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e) If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. Page5 of 6 19-06-2026 (2/2) Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order VEDA To

1.The XIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore.

2.Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Anna Salai, Chennai.

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. CRLoOPoNo.o14186oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. VEDA CRLoOPoNo.o14186oofo2026 19-06-2026 (2/2) Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Vinothkumar ..Petitioner Vs The State rep.by its, Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Anna Salai, Chennai. [Cr.No.20 of 2026] ..Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail in the event of arrest in Cr.No.20 of 2026 on the file of respondent police. For Petitioner: For Intervenor: Ms.K.Jayasuriya Ms.U.Anunitha For Respondent: Ms.R.S.Indira Government Advocate (Crl.Side)