Bharathi Raja vs State

K.Rajasekar, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 27.08.2025 by the respondent police in connection with Crime No.112 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 63, 64(2), (f), 64(2)(k) of BNS, seek bail.

2.The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, who is the relative of the victim girl, aged about 22 years and they developed relationship between them and this petitioner had sexual intercourse for some period which resulted in the victim became pregnant.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the victim are close relatives and there is no previous cases pending against the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner was arrested on 27.08.2025 and is in judicial custody for more than 65 days.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent police reported that investigation is pending. He further submitted that the statements were recorded from the victim girl under Section 183 of BNSS. Hence, he vehemently opposed for the grant of bail to the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and perused the materials available on record.

6.Considering the fact that the victim girl is aged about 22 years and both are close relatives, though it is stated that the victim girl is pregnant, considering the age and other circumstances and also considering the statement recorded from the victim girl under Section 183 of BNSS, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions:

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a 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 District & Sessions Judge, Tirupattur, and on further conditions that:

[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 stay at Trichy and report before the learned Judicial Magstrate I, Trichy daily 10.30 a.m. for a period of two months, and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; It is made clear that the petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of the respondent police;

[c] the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required;

[d] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de facto complainant and witnesses;

[e] the petitioner to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard;

[f] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned 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)13 SCC 283];

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.