Kannan vs State Rep By Inspector Of Police
2026 Latest Caselaw 1903 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1903 Mad
Judgement Date : 16 April, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Kannan vs State Rep By Inspector Of Police on 16 April, 2026

                                                                                     Crl.O.P.No.8936 of 2026
                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                        DATED : 16.04.2026

                                                             CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

                                                   Crl.O.P.No.8936 of 2026

                   Kannan                                                       ... Petitioner(s)

                                                               Vs.

                   State rep. by
                   The Inspector of Police,
                   AWPS, Kotakuppam Police Station,
                   Villupuram District.                                         ... Respondent(s)
                   Crime No.5 of 2026

                   PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023,
                   to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in Crime No.5 of 2026 pending on
                   the file of the respondent police.

                                    For Petitioner(s)          : Mr.S.Kumaradevan

                                    For Respondent(s)          : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar,
                                                                 Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

                                                             ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

20.02.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 64 and 318(2) of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.5 of 2026 on the file of the

respondent police, seeks bail.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. The case of the prosecution is that, while the petitioner and the defacto

complainant were consuming liquor, the defacto complainant became

unconscious and the petitioner is alleged to have had forcible sexual intercourse

with her. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing 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 20.02.2026 and is

ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

Hence, he prayed for grant of bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the

respondent, while opposing the grant of bail, reiterated the prosecution case and,

on instructions, submitted that the petitioner has no bad antecedents and that the

investigation has already been completed.

5. On a perusal of the statement of the victim aged 37 years, recorded

under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, this Court is unable to find

any allegation of forcible sexual assault. Considering the above facts and

circumstances, the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, the fact

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

that the petitioner has no bad antecedents, and also the fact that no prima facie

material is available to show forcible sexual assault, this Court is inclined to

enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on their

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, Vanur, 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 report before the respondent police twice a day at 10.30 a.m. and 05.30 p.m. for a period of one month 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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.

16.04.2026 skr

Note:

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

1. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Vanur.

2. The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Villupuram.

3. The Inspector of Police, AWPS, Kotakuppam Police Station, Villupuram.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

skr

16.04.2026

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis