Harisanthoshkumar v. The State Represented by the Inspector of Police

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

30.05.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 69, 89, 296(b) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.21 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner, on the pretext of marriage, had physical relationship with the defacto complainant and subsequently refused to marry her. 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 initially, the petitioner and the defacto complainant were employed under the same employer, during which period they developed a love affair and had a consensual physical relationship. He further submitted that the defacto complainant had also lodged another complaint against one Guru, pursuant to which an FIR came to be registered by the Acharapakkam Police Station in Crime No.73 of 2025. However, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) objected to the said submission by stating that he had no instructions in that regard. Hence, he prayed for the grant of bail.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent, while opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and, on instructions, submitted that even according to the prosecution, the defacto complainant had suffered a miscarriage and that the relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was consensual in nature. He further submitted that a major portion of the investigation has already been completed and that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

¶5Considering the totality of the circumstances, the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, the fact that the relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was consensual in nature, the fact that a major portion of the investigation has already been completed, and that the further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.

¶6Accordingly, 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-I, Tindivanam, 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.

24.07.2026 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-I, Tindivanam,

¶2The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Tindivanam

¶3The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tindivanam

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

24.07.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Harisanthoshkumar ... Petitioner(s) Vs. The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tindivanam ... Respondent(s) Crime No.21 of 2026 PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in Crime No.21 of 2026 pending on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s) : Mr.N.S.Ramesh Durai For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)