Bakkiyalakshmi v. The State By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 06.02.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN 1.Bakkiyalakshmi 2.Ramadass 3.Gothandaraman @ Kothandaraman

4. Geetha. ...Petitioners/Accused (A2 to A5) Vs.

State by Inspector of Police, AWPS Valasaravakkam Koyambedu, Chennai.

(Cr.No.1/2025) ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent police concerned in Crime No.1 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, AWPS Valasaravakkam, Koyambedu, Chennai. For Petitioners :

Mr.Elavarasan M R For Respondent :

Mr.S.Balaji Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.R.Dhanasekaran 1/6

O R D E R

The petitioners/A2 to A5, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) of IPC & 115(2), 351(3) of BNS 2023, in Crime No.1 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant is the wife of A1, who got married on 07.02.2022 and the parents of the de-facto complainant had gifted 100 sovereigns of gold jewels and five kilograms of silver articles as Sridhana to the marriage; that A1/husband of the de-facto complainant at the instigation of the petitioners/A2 to A5, had demanded the jewels, which were given as gifts to be handed over to his custody; and that the petitioners/A2 to A5, along with A1 had prevented the de-facto complainant from studying for an LLB degree and also abused her in filthy language. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners/A2 to A5 would submit that the petitioners and the de-facto complainant are living separately and have nothing to do with the matrimonial relationship between the de-facto complainant and the first accused; that the allegations have been invented for the purpose of 2/6

the case; and that in any case, even according to the averments in the FIR, the defacto complainant had kept the jewels in the parents' house since she did not have proper facilities to keep the jewels safely in her house; and that the FIR only discloses a matrimonial differences and sought for anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent police, per contra, submitted that A1, the husband, was arrested and subsequently released on bail, and the case is pending investigation.

5. The learned counsel for the de-facto complainant, however, strongly opposed on the ground that the de-facto complainant's articles such as an ID card and a few other belongings, are retained by the petitioners; and that the petitioners had caused cruelty since the de-facto complainant was pursuing her LLB degree.

6. On perusal of the FIR, it is seen that the jewels were not handed over to the first accused or to the petitioners, and the de-facto complainant had stated that she had kept it in her house to keep it safe. The other allegations in the FIR only relate to the matrimonial differences and petty quarrels between the first 3/6

accused and the de-facto complainant. In any case, considering the nature of the relationship between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

7. 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 was made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ponamallee, Chennai on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate, on further condition that:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further 4/6

orders;

[c] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 06.02.2025 dk To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee, Chennai.

2.The Inspector of Police, AWPS Valasaravakkam, Koyambedu, Chennai.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

dk 06.02.2025 6/6