Amarnath v. The State Rep by the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

12.06.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 69, 318(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000, in Crime No.17 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2It is the case of the prosecution that, on the pretext of marriage, the petitioner had physical relationship with the defacto complainant, aged about 29 years, and thereafter refused to marry her. It is further alleged that the petitioner cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.38,00,000/-. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner has been in custody since 12.06.2026 and is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. It is the specific submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has repaid a sum of Rs.45,20,155/-, representing the amount utilised by him through the defacto complainant's credit card. Hence, he prayed for the grant of bail.

¶4The learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor strongly opposed the grant of bail by contending that the petitioner had cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.38,00,000/- and that the repayment of the credit card amount would not absolve him of the other serious allegations levelled against him.

¶5The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent reiterated the prosecution case and opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. He also produced a copy of the First Information Report before this Court and, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and that a major portion of the investigation has already been completed.

¶6I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

¶7On a perusal of the First Information Report, it is seen that the relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was initially consensual in nature. Though serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner, considering the period of incarceration undergone by him, the fact that he has no criminal antecedents, the fact that the relationship between the parties was initially consensual, and also the fact that a major portion of the investigation has already been completed, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.

¶8Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, and subject to the following conditions: [a] 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 the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283]; [f] if the petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

21.07.2026 skr Note:

¶1Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

¶2All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code. To

¶1The learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur

¶2The Superintendent, Central Prison-II, Puzhal

¶3Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thirumangalam

¶4The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras C.KUMARAPPAN,J. skr

21.07.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Amarnath ... Petitioner(s) Vs. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thirumangalam ... Respondent(s) Crime No.17 of 2026 Mr.A.Sangeetha … Intervenor(s) permitted to intervene vide order dated 21.07.2026 PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in Crime No.17 of 2026 pending on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s) : Mr.R.Rafi Babu For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor(s) : Mr.Udhar Shankar