Shiyam v. State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22-01-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

1. Shiyam

2. Jayalakshimi Purnapandi @ Jayalakshmi ..Petitioners Vs State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station Avadi, Avadi. Thiruvallur District.

(Crime No.50/2025) ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.50 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioners:

Mr. Swami Subramanian For Respondent:

Ms.J.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Section 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in Crime No.50 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2. The prosecution case alleged that the first petitioner is the husband and

second petitioner is the mother in law of the de facto complainant. Marriage between the first petitioner and the de facto complainant taken place as early as in the September 2024. After marriage, the 2nd petitioner joining hands with his mother demanded 100 sovereigns of gold and Rs.10 lakhs and threatened the de facto complainant with dire consequences. Unable to bear the harassment, she was forced to come out of the matrimonial house. While she was staying with her parents house, legal notice was issued by the petitioners and it was suitably replied by the de facto complainant. Thereafter she resumed her matrimonial life with the petitioners from 05.08.2025. While so, 01.12.2025, the first petitioner and his mother attacked her and caused severe injuries and taken away her Thali Chain and she immediately went outside the matrimonial house at 2 a.m with the help of the Police officials. The Police Officials came and rescued her and thereafter admitted her in hospital.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the false accusations has been attributed against the petitioners herein and no severe injuries have caused to the de facto complainant and she behaved abnormally on that particular day and hence the complaint has been lodged and the petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation and hence pleased to grant anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the

respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that investigation in this case is pending and opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. I have gone through the FIR and other connected materials. Though it is stated that the de facto complainant sustained injuries and those injuries are not grievous in nature and also considering that the issue is with regard to matrimonial, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary to investigate with the case of this nature. Hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. subject to certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute separate bonds for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition that:

(a) If the petitioners fail to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;

(c) The petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation; (d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e)If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

22-01-2026 shl

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

shl To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee

2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station Avadi, Avadi. Thiruvallur District.

3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras 22-01-2026