Shelpa Pokala v. The Commissioner Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
1. Shelpa Pokala
2. Madhava Krishna
3. Asha Pokala
4. Sai Krishna Pokala ... Petitioners Vs.
1. The Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City, Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560 001.
2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Amruthahally Police Station, Bengaluru City, Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560 024.
3. The Inspector of Police, K4 Police Station, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040.
... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on interstate anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.0107 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Santhosh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) (for R3)
ORDER
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 125, 2(36), 2(5), 127(2), 1/6
2(38), 308(2), 3(5), 3(6), 299, 2(7), 303(1), 2(9), 308(1), 351(1), 351(2), 329(1), 61(1), 329(3), 318(1), 352, 329(2), 324(2), 316(2), 318(4), 324(1), 316(1), 318(2), 329(4), 351(3), 62 and 75 of BNSS in Crime No.0107 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the de-facto complainant took place on 24.05.2024 and thereafter, there was a matrimonial discard between them. Further, the 1st petitioner and the 3rd petitioner herein had forced to move the de-facto complainant from the matrimonial house. Hence, the present case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the 1st petitioner and the de-facto complainant are husband and wife and there was some matrimonial discard between them. Hence, 1st petitioner came down to Chennai, the 2nd petitioner and 3rd petitioners are her parents and 4th petitioner is her brother. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the 1st petitioner filed a petition for divorce in HMOP.No.2579 of 2025 before the II Additional Family Court, Chennai on 11.06.2025 and the de-facto complainant has also filed a divorce application before the I Additional Judge, Family Court, Bangalore in 2/6
M.C.No.3423 of 2025. Further, the first petitioner has also filed an application before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.P.No.1996 of 2025 for transfer of the M.C.No.3423 of 2025 on the file of I Additional Judge, Family Court, Bangalore to the file of II Additional Family Court, Chennai and the same is pending. After filing of the HMOP, now the de-facto complainant has given a false complaint on 17.03.2026 and based on the complaint, the petitioners were issued with summons by 2nd respondent Police. He further submitted that if the petitioners move to Karnataka to arrange for bail, they would be arrested. Further, the petitioners had no acquaintance in Bangalore, so as to have the effective legal assistance. Hence, they required some time to stay there for availing the legal aid. Hence, he prayed for grant of interstate anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Indoria Vs. State of Karnataka reported in [2024 (4) SCC 749].
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the third respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
3/6
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on either side.
7. While looking into the factual position, there is a matrimonial discard between the 1st petitioner and the de-facto complainant and the petitioners are residents of Chennai and only due to the marriage, the 1st petitioner stayed at Bangalore for some time. Hence, the request of the petitioners that they require some time to arrange for legal assistance at Bangalore, is reasonable. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant interstate anticipatory bail for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to certain conditions.
8. Accordingly, interim interstate anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioners shall surrender before the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, within seven(7) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
(ii) On such surrender, the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail on condition that they shall execute a bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty 4/6
Thousand only), each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate.
(iii) Within two weeks of such surrender before the above said Magistrate, the petitioners shall seek appropriate relief before any of the jurisdictional Courts in the State of Karnataka. The petition is ordered accordingly.
10.04.2026 mp To
1. The V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City, Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560 001.
3. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Amruthahally Police Station, Bengaluru City, Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560 024.
4. The Inspector of Police, K4 Police Station, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
5/6
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
mp Crl.OP.No.8864 of 2026 10.04.2026 6/6