Vimal v. The State Rep By , The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 30.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL Vimal ... Petitioner/ Accused Vs State Rep. by The Inspector of Police W.25 T.Nagar All Women Police Station, Chennai.

(Crime No.11/2025) ... Respondent / Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vijayakumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner / Accused, who apprehends arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 69 of BNS in connection with the Cr.No.11 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail. 1/5

2. The case of the of the prosecution is that the petitioner, on the promise of marrying the defacto complainant had physical relationship with her and thereafter, refused to marry her. Hence, the case has been registered against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had not committed any such offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and in order to harass the petitioner, she had lodged a false complainant against the petitioner. Hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate [Criminal Side] on instructions submitted that the petitioner, on the promise of marrying the defacto complainant had physical relationship with her and thereafter, refused to marry her. He further submitted that the charge sheet has been filed before the concerned Court.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the nature of offence and the fact that charge sheet has been filed in this case and that the petitioner is not involved in any previous 2/5

case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions :

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, on condition that the petitioner shall execute separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

[a] the petitioner shall report before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. [b] the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; [c] the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. 3/5

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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].

[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.2023.

30.12.2025 vrc 4/5

P.DHANABAL, J., vrc 06.

30.12.2025 5/5