IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Iyappan S/o. Pandurangan, No.32, Bajanai Kovil Street, Oravandavadai Village, Alathur Post, Chengam Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.

..Appellant(s)

Vs

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Kancheepuram District.

2. The State rep by The Inspector of Police Oragadam Police Station, Kancheepuram District.

Crime No.407/2025.

3. V. Samyukta D/o. Vendantham, No.261/3, Kalaingnar Nagar, Irulanjeri, Tiruvallur.

..Respondent(s)

PRAYER : Appeal filed under Section 14 A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, to set aside the order dated 27.01.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.116 of 2026 on the file of the Special Judge for the exclusive trail of cases under the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, Principal District and Sessions Judge Kancheepuram and grant bail for the appellant in connection with Crime No.407 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent police.

For Appellant(s): R.Ezhilarasan For Respondent(s): MR.S.Balaji, G.A for R1 and R2 Mr.V.Perarasu, Legal Aid Counsel for R3

JUDGMENT

The Appeal challenges the dismissal of the appellant’s bail petition filed before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram.

2. The appellant is an accused in Crime No.407 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 294(b), 376, 493 and 506(1) of IPC and 3(1)(xi), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, who was arrested on 25.12.2025. He moved a bail petition before the Trial Court which came to be dismissed by the impugned order.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant and the defacto complainant were working in the same Company from the year 2021; that the appellant and the defacto complainant had developed a love affair; that the appellant on the promise of marriage, had sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant on several occasions; that thereafter, the defacto complainant requested the appellant to marry her; and that the appellant had stated that he got married to another lady and therefore, he cannot marry her; and thus committed the aforesaid offences.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the allegations in the FIR would show that the appellant and the defacto complainant had a consensual affair; that the allegation that the defacto complainant was not aware of the marriage of the appellant with another lady is false; that the appellant had invited all his office colleagues for the marriage and therefore, the defacto complainant was aware of the same; and that the appellant is in custody for more than 45 days and hence, he may be released on bail.

5. Notice has been served on the defacto complainant who requested legal assistance. Hence, this Court appointed Mr.V.Perarasu, learned legal aid counsel to assist the defacto complainant.

6. The learned legal aid counsel for the defacto complainant vehemently opposed the grant of bail and would submit that the allegations constitute the offence against the appellant; that if the appellant is released on bail, he is likely to tamper with the witnesses; that the investigation is still pending and that the appellant is not entitled to be released on bail.

7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that considering the seriousness of the offence committed by the appellant and also since investigation is still pending, he may not be granted bail. He would further submit that the victim became pregnant and medicines were administered to abort the child.

8. Considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record.

9. It is not in dispute that the appellant and victim had consensual affair.

It is also not in dispute that the appellant and the victim were working in the same Company. Therefore, there is force in the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the victim’s allegation that she was not aware of the marriage of the appellant with ano