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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 02.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Deepika ... Petitioner Vs.

The State rep by The Inspector of Police, J-3, Guindy Police Station.

... Respondent (Crime No.304 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest pending investigation in Crime No.304 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vinith For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 108 of BNS in Crime No.304 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

1/5

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the the petitioner and the defacto complainant while working in a private concern were in relationship, and she has siphoned of money to the tune of Rs.14 lakhs, while so, the deceased got engaged with some other girl, as a result of which, the petitioner got annoyed and intimated the defacto complainant that if he proceed with engagement, he will divulge the illegal relationship as well the siphoning of amount and afraid of such intimidation, the deceased committed suicide by jumping in front of the running train. . Hence, a case has been registered.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the the petitioner and one Karthick had relationship and was working as a Manager in the private concern. He further submitted that that inspite of their relationship, deceased had engaged with some other person and therefore, petitioner questioned as to how he can have engagement with someone else, while he was in relationship, however, defacto complainant on his own committed suicide, however petitioner had never abetted the deceased to commit suicide. He further submitted that she is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

2/5

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that investigation almost completed. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. While looking at the FIR, which has been registered on 01.07.2025, at this length of time, the question of custodial interrogation does not arise and apart from that, I do not find any serious implication against the petitioner in FIR. Therefore, considering the fact that the petitioner being a women, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions: (a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) 3/5

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 petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four 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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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 petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

02.03.2026 sma To 1.The Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai 2.The Inspector of Police, J-3, Guindy Police Station.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 4/5

C.KUMARAPPAN.

J.

sma Crl.OP.No.5282 of 2026 02.03.2026 5/5