Narayanasamy vs State

C.Kumarappan, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 16.04.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 296(b), 74 and 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, r/w Section 4 of the TNPHW Act, in Crime No.38 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The allegation against the petitioner is that, owing to a domestic dispute, the petitioner, who is the brother-in-law of the defacto complainant, picked up a quarrel with her and abused her in filthy language. During the course of the altercation, the petitioner allegedly used criminal force, pulled and hugged the defacto complainant with the intent to outrage her modesty, and further assaulted her, thereby causing intimidation and disturbance. Hence, the case.

The 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 16.04.2026 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 that, owing to the domestic dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. Hence, he prayed for the grant of bail.

The 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 the defacto complainant is a widow and that the petitioner is none other than her brother-in-law. Taking advantage of the death of the defacto complainant's husband, the petitioner is alleged to have made repeated sexual advances towards her and, on the date of occurrence, while in an intoxicated state, allegedly subjected her to unwelcome physical contact and sexual advances. He further submitted that the petitioner has no bad antecedents and that a major portion of the investigation has already been completed.

Though the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner since 16.04.2026, the absence of any adverse antecedents, and 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.

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 Judicial Magistrate Court, Gudiyatham, 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 stay at Virudhunagar and report before the Inspector of Police, Bazaar Police Station, 42, Sivagamipuram, Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu-626001 everyday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of 30 days 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.