Vijayakumar vs The State Rep by The Inspector of Police

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.07.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections 69 and 89 of BNS in Crime No.21 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the defacto complainant were in a relationship, that on the pretext of marrying her, the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant, due to which the defacto complainant got pregnant; that thereafter, the petitioner has insisted the defacto complainant to abort the pregnancy and gave her abortion tablets and subsequently, the petitioner refused to marry her. Hence, the present case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is the second bail application filed by the petitioner and that the earlier bail application was dismissed for the reason the investigation is still pending. He further submitted that the relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant is a consensual relationship; that due to difference of opinion, they breakup their relationship; and that in order to harass the petitioner, a false and frivolous complaint was lodged against the petitioner by the defacto complainant. 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 submitted that the age of the victim is 23 years and the accused age is 22 years. He also produced the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS. However, he opposed the grant of 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 either side, it is seen that the victim is aged 23 years and the accused is aged about 22 years old. Both are grown up, majors and are capable of understanding the consequences of a physical relationship. Therefore, considering the period of incarceration, the statement of the victim and also the stage of the investigation, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail on 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 Judicial Magistrate Court, Saidapet, 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.