Pastor Samuel Jayaraj v. The State Rep By Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27.04.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Pastor Samuel Jayaraj ..Petitioner Vs The State Rep by Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Thousand Lights Triplicane, Chennai.

(Crime No.21 of 2025) ..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner herein on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the Crime No.21 of 2025 on the file of the respondent/Police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Kingston Jerold For Respondent :

Mr.P.Dhileepan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 85 of BNS and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.21 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is arrayed as A5 and that he had issued a favourable certificate in respect of the first accused for the purpose of marriage, and on that basis, his name has been included in the FIR. It is further alleged that the de facto complainant is the wife of the first accused and that A2 to A4 are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the de facto complainant. It is further alleged that, due to matrimonial disputes between the first accused and the de facto complainant, the later lodged a complaint before the respondent police, making allegations against the petitioner. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was innocent and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and he is ready to co-operate for investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. From the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, it is seen that the petitioner along with other accused have settled the issue

with the de facto complainant, which fact has also been admitted by the learned counsel for the intervener as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side). The dispute arises out of matrimonial issues. Hence, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

7.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the Additional Mahila Court, Egmore on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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) 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 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.

27.04.2026 2/3 kv To

1. The Additional Mahila Court, Egmore.

2. Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Thousand Lights Triplicane, Chennai.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

kv 27.04.2026 2/3