Madras High CourtCriminal LawCriminal Procedure and Evidence

Madras HC Grants Bail To Married Man In Case Filed After Married Woman’s Pregnancy, Finding FIR Described Their Relationship As Consensual

Manickamv.The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC Grants Bail To Married Man In Case Filed After Married Woman’s Pregnancy, Finding FIR Described Their Relationship As Consensual. Manickam vs The State of Tamilnadu. Madras High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the appellant should be granted bail pending the proceedings in Crime No. 49 of 2026

The court held

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Special Court’s order dated 30 September 2026, and granted bail.

It also directed

The appellant was required to execute a bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties for like sums, comply with surety-identification requirements, remain in Tenkasi, report to the police twice daily for one month, and thereafter appear before the Trial Court on the first working day of each month until further orders, subject to the stated exception for required court appearances.

The police were permitted to seek cancellation of bail if a condition was breached.

01Facts

The prosecution alleged that the appellant, a married man, had a relationship with the married de facto complainant, who became pregnant and then lodged a complaint.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 1–4

The appellant claimed the complaint was false and motivated by a property dispute and prior enmity, and stated that he was willing to undergo a DNA test.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 1–4

The prosecution opposed bail, relying on the complainant’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS; it also informed the Court that the investigation was complete and a draft final report was ready.

p. 3 · ¶ 5

The Special Court had rejected the appellant’s bail application, and he appealed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

p. 1 · p. 5 · ¶ 10

02Issues

i.1. Whether the appellant should be granted bail pending the proceedings in Crime No. 49 of 2026

pp. 1, 3–4 · ¶ 5–10

ii.2. Whether the Special Court’s order rejecting bail should be set aside

p. 5 · ¶ 10

03Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, which provides the statutory basis for an appeal from the Special Court’s order.

p. 1

The Court considered the complainant’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS and the status of the investigation in deciding the bail application.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 5–9

The judgment cites no precedents or expressly sets out a broader bail test.

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 183

04Reasoning

On its review of the initial information and the complainant’s Section 183 BNSS statement, the Court considered the relationship consensual and noted that the complaint was lodged after the complainant became pregnant.

p. 4 · ¶ 6–7

It also noted that the complainant had voluntarily cleared her father’s name and that the investigation was complete.

p. 4 · ¶ 8–9

Having regard to those circumstances, the Court concluded that bail was warranted.

p. 4 · ¶ 9

05Holding

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Special Court’s order dated 30 September 2026, and granted bail.

p. 5 · ¶ 10

The appellant was required to execute a bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties for like sums, comply with surety-identification requirements, remain in Tenkasi, report to the police twice daily for one month, and thereafter appear before the Trial Court on the first working day of each month until further orders, subject to the stated exception for required court appearances.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 10(i)–(iv)

The police were permitted to seek cancellation of bail if a condition was breached.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 10(i)–(iv)
Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

ManickamvsThe State of Tamilnadu

Madras High Court · November 11, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment