Manivannan vs State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.08.2026 for offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (corresponding to Sections 294(b), 323, and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code) and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman (Amendment) Act, 2002 in Crime No.333 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, and has preferred this petition seeking enlargement on bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the de facto complainant were previously in a love affair. Due to a sudden misunderstanding, a dispute arose between them, following which the petitioner allegedly abused, assaulted, criminally intimidated, and harassed the de facto complainant, resulting in the registration of the present case.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to a personal dispute arising out of a failed relationship. He further submitted that considering the nature of the allegations, the offenses do not invite severe statutory bars, and the petitioner has been in continuous incarceration since 18.08.2026. He further added that the petitioner is ready to abide by any orders imposed by this Court.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) strongly opposed the bail application, submitting that the case is still under investigation. He argued that the petitioner has subjected the de-facto complainant to severe harassment and threats, and if the petitioner is enlarged on bail while the investigation is pending, there is every likelihood of him tampering with the evidence or intimidating the de facto complainant.

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

Taking into account the nature of the allegations arising out of a relationship dispute, the fact that major components of the offenses do not invite severe statutory bars, and considering the substantial period of custody already undergone by the petitioner from 18.08.2026, this Court is inclined to grant relief to the petitioner despite the fact that the matter is still under investigation.

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 District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam, and on further conditions that:

[a] The petitioner shall file an affidavit undertaking that he will not disturb or contact the de-facto complainant, nor will he indulge in any adverse activity against her or tamper with any evidence during the pendency of the investigation.

[b] the sureties shall affix his 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 his identity;

[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10:30 A.M. until further orders;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[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.