Madras High Court
CRL A(MD)/1278/2026 of Manickam Vs The State of Tamilnadu on 11 November 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.LINGESWARAN
CRL A(MD) No. 1278 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011505472026}
Manickam
S/o. Rathamudiyar,
No.8/22, South Street,
Kadampangulam,
Kadayanallur Taluk,
Tenkasi District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamilnadu,
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Puliyangudi Sub-Division,
Tenkasi District.
2. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Awps - Puliangudi Tenkasi District.
(Crime No. 49 of 2026)
3. M.Mahalakshmi
D/o. Mariappan,
No. 7/176, Indira Memorial Colony,
Kadampangulam,
Kadayanallur Taluk,
Tenkasi District - 627857.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST
(POA) Act, to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 30.09.2026 made in Cr.M.P.No.16 of 2026, on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act, Tenkasi and set aside the same and enlarge the appellant on bail in connection with Crime
No.49 of 2026 on the file of the 2nd respondent Police by allowing this Criminal Appeal.
For Petitioner(s)
:Mr.K.Sasiprabha
For R1 and R2
:Mr.A.Robinson
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R3
: Notice served. No appearance
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/petitioner herein, who is a married man, was involved in a relationship with another married woman, who is the de facto complainant and that the de facto complainant became pregnant as a result of the said relationship and subsequently lodged a complaint seeking legal action against the appellant/petitioner herein.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submitted that the appellant/petitioner herein has purchased the property of the father of the defacto complainant. At the time of marriage of the defacto complainant, the family of the defacto complainant wanted the property to be returned to them for which the appellant/petitioner herein had refused. Due to this there were some disputes and previous enmity between parties which had resulted in lodging of the false complaint.
3. He further submitted that earlier there were allegations against her own father by the defacto complainant and after the father committed suicide, the defacto complainant charged the appellant/petitioner herein with these accusations.
4. He further submitted that he is even ready for a DNA test to prove his innocence.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent 1 and 2 submitted that the investigation in this case had been completed and the draft final report was ready. He further relied upon the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS and opposed the bail application. Though the victim was served with notice, she did not enter appearance either in person or through counsel.
6. I have carefully perused the first information given by the prosecutrix as well as the statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS.
7. A perusal of the first information given by the prosecutrix clearly shows that it is a consensual relationship between two married persons. The appellant/petitioner is married to another lady and having three children. The prosecutrix is married to another man and having no children. It is only after becoming pregnant, she had lodged this complaint.
8. A perusal of the statement under Section 183 of BNSS shows that she had also voluntarily cleared the name of her father.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the statement of the prosecutrix and further considering the fact that the investigation in this case is already over, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the appellant/petitioner herein.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the orders passed by the Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act, Tenkasi, in Cr.M.P.No.16 of 2026 dated 30.09.2026, is hereby set aside. The appellant/petitioner herein is ordered to be released on bail on the following conditions:- i. The appellant/petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act, Tenkasi.
ii. The sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the trial Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;
iii) The appellants shall stay at Tenkasi and report before the Inspector of Police, Puliyangudi AWPS, Tenkasi District, daily twice at 10.30 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., for a period of one month and thereafter, they shall appear before the Trial Court on first working day of every month, at 10.30 a.m., until further orders, except the days, on which his appearance is required before the trial Court.
iv) On violation of any of the above conditions by the appellants, the respondent police shall move an application for cancellation of the bail. 11-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rgm
To
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Puliyangudi Sub-Division Tenkasi District
2. Inspector Of Police, Awps - Puliangudi Tenkasi District
3. The Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act, Tenkasi
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai Copy To : Section Officer ( VR Section ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
D.LINGESWARAN, J. rgm CRL A(MD) No. 1278 of 2026 11-11-2026