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 · ¶ 1–4The 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 · ¶ 1–4The 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 · ¶ 5The 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 · ¶ 1002Issues
i.1. Whether the appellant should be granted bail pending the proceedings in Crime No. 49 of 2026
pp. 1, 3–4 · ¶ 5–10ii.2. Whether the Special Court’s order rejecting bail should be set aside
p. 5 · ¶ 1003Law 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. 1The 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 · ¶ 5–9The 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 · ¶ 6–7It also noted that the complainant had voluntarily cleared her father’s name and that the investigation was complete.
p. 4 · ¶ 8–9Having regard to those circumstances, the Court concluded that bail was warranted.
p. 4 · ¶ 905Holding
The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Special Court’s order dated 30 September 2026, and granted bail.
p. 5 · ¶ 10The 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)Original Court PDF
ManickamvsThe State of Tamilnadu
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
