Aqud Akram, S/O.Ismail vs State

C.Kumarappan, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.03.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections 69 and 318(2) of BNS in Crime No.5 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner on false promise of marriage, had physical relationship with the de-facto complainant and thereafter, he refused to marry her. The further allegation is that the petitioner was a married man. Hence, the present case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the de-facto complainant and her friend have cheated one Yuvaraj, who is the friend of the petitioner. In furtherance thereof, the petitioner’s father take action against the de-facto complainant. As a result of which, a false complaint has been lodged against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 14.03.2026 and he is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

The learned counsel appearing for the intervener would vehemently opposed this bail application on the ground that the petitioner has developed intimacy with the de-facto complainant and has also caused miscarriage by giving wrong medicine and thereby, the petitioner committed a grave offence. Hence, he is not entitled for bail.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the above submission and submitted that though the investigation is pending, the crucial part of investigation i.e., examination of the accused is over. However, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

While looking at the bail rejection order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, the learned Judge has recorded that the medical examination of accused and the de-facto complainant was not over. Now, the learned Government Advocate fairly submits that the medical examination is over. Apart from that, while looking at Section 180(3) of BNSS statement of the de-facto complainant, it is seen that the occurrence took place on 17.09.2025 and that initially, their relationship was consensual in nature, and subsequently, there was some misunderstanding. After came to know about the petitioner’s antecedent as he being a married man, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint.

Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and on the fact that the petitioner has been in incarceration since 14.03.20267, and on the further fact that the occurrence took place in the month of September, 2025, and that the medical examination of the accused is over, this Court is of the view that, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required, hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with stringent conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his 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 Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai 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 daily twice at 10.30 a.m. and 5.30 p.m., for a period of one month;

[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 petitioner 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 absconds, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.