Nadeshwari v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

1. Nadeshwari

2. Ravichandran

3. Madhumathi ..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep. by Inspector of Police, Alangiyam Police Station, Tiruppur District.

Crime No.24 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS to grant Anticipatory Bail to the Petitioners in the event of their arrest in Crime No.24 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.N. Ponraj For Respondent(s):

Ms.J.R.Archana, GA (Crl.side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hand of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of BNS read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act (TNPHW), 1998 in Crime No.24 of 2026, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegations against the petitioners are the due to previous enmity in respect of the partitioning ancestral properties, the petitioners abused the defacto complainant in filthy language, assaulted him, causing injuries. Hence, the case has been registered.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case by the respondent police. He further submitted that the dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant are purely civil in nature and the petitioners are ready to cooperate with the investigation and prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and on instruction submitted that investigation in this case is pending and opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant are not serious, and noting that custodial

interrogation of the petitioners are not necessary at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following 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 ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Dharapuram on condition that each of the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

[a] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am., for a period three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

[b] the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

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

[e] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.2023.

17-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order JAI To 1.Inspector of Police, Alangiyam Police Station, Tiruppur District.

2. The Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

JAI 17-02-2026