R.Shanmugam vs The State Rep by The Inspector of Police

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.08.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 74, 75 of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women (Amendment) Act, 2002 in Crime No.588 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The allegation against the petitioner is that the defacto complainant is the daughter of the petitioner. On the date of occurrence, when the petitioner came to house in an inebriated condition and quarreled with her mother, the defacto complainant intervened and questioned him, at that time, the petitioner abused her in filthy language, exposed his private parts and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, the present case was registered.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is none other than the father of the defacto complainant and only due to wordy quarrel in a drunken state, a false complaint has been lodged against the petitioner. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the Petitioner.

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and submmitted that the petitioner in an inebriated condition, abused and threatened the defacto complainant and her mother and that the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents against him. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, it is seen that the petitioner is the father of the defacto complainant. According to the FIR, the petitioner / father is an alcoholic and that every day, he used to quarrel with his wife and daughter in an inebriated condition. Considering the nature of the allegations and the period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner, 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, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Madhavaram, 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 report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

[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 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];

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