Dismissed¶¶37

Manivannan v. the State Rep by the Inspector of Police

Madras HC19 Nov 2025CRL OP/31538/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.O.P.No.31538 of 2025; Madras High Court; K. Rajasekar J.; 19.11.2025; bail refused/dismissed; Section 483 BNSS Act 2023; Sections 88, 66 BNS 2023; Section 5(2) Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971; Sections 6(a), 6(b), 20 PCPNDT Act 1994; prenatal diagnostic test; female foetus abortion; sex selection; Crime No.116 of 2025; Kurisilapattu Police Station; Tirupathur District; accused A1; five accused; three previous cases; habitual involvement; anticipatory bail denied; co-accused granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused: considering the nature of the allegations, the petitioner's three previous cases (two of a similar nature), and his apparent habitual involvement in similar offences even though the co-accused had been granted bail, the Court was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. ¶¶34-36

Manivannan Vs the State Rep by the Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.31538 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19.11.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.31538 of 2025

¶7

Manivannan ... Petitioner

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Kurisilapattu Police Station, Tirupathur District. (Crime No.116 of 2025) ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS Act, 2023,

¶11

pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.116 of 2025 pending on the

¶12

file of the respondent police.

¶13

For Petitioner : Ms.S.Nadhiya For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

1/5

¶16

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

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.31538 of 2025

¶18

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

¶19

11.09.2025, for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 88, 66 of BNS, 2023 and Section 5(2) of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and Sections 6(a), 6(b) and 20 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 in Crime No.116 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused conducted a ‘Prenatal Diagnostic Test’ and found that the foetus in the womb was female. It is further alleged that the petitioner and others aborted the foetus by administering certain medicines after collecting a huge amount. Hence, the complaint.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

¶22

the petitioner is ranked as A1. He further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated, since he has got some previous cases. Hence, he prayed for

¶23

grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶24

Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the

¶25

2/5

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.O.P.No.31538 of 2025

¶28

respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there are

¶29

totally 5 accused in this case and the petitioner is ranked as A1. He further

¶30

submitted that though other accused granted bail, this petitioner is having three

¶31

previous cases, including 2 cases, similar in nature. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶32

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record

¶33

including the First Information Report.

¶34

Considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that the petitioner

¶35

has three previous cases, two of which are of a similar nature, and though the other co-accused have been granted bail, the petitioner appears to be habitually involved in similar offences, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail

¶36

to the petitioner.

¶37

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

19.11.2025

drl

3/5

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