Sabitha v. The State Represented By Its Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14-05-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Sabitha ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State represented by its Inspector of Police, Vellore South, FIR No.46 of 2026.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, praying to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in FIR No.46 of 2026 dated 18.03.2026 on the file of the Respondent Police to such other sureties satisfaction as this Honble Court may deem fit and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper and thereby render justice.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.R.Kishore Kumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Balaji Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner who apprehends arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(B), 351(2), and 132 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women (Amendment) Act, 2002 in Crime No. 46 of 2026 dated 18.03.2026, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant, working as the Assistant Engineer (Project), Zone-III, Vellore Corporation, lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner and her husband (A-1) criminaly intimidated her under the pretext of their business application dated 18.02.2026 being returned by the Corporation. Hence the case. 3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person, a mother of three children, and has been falsely implicated due to a commercial dispute regarding the erection of advertising hoardings and corporate license favoritism involving a business rival named Kumaravel. He further submitted that this is the first anticipatory bail application before this Court and no similar petition is pending anywhere.

He stated that the main accused (A-1/husband), who runs an agency named Navasai Media, was already arrested, kept in custody for 21 days, and subsequently enlarged on bail on 18.04.2026. He added that the commercial dispute led to multiple cases, and many connected accused persons have already been arrested and released on bail. He emphasized that the petitioner is the wife of the first accused, has no previous criminal cases or bad antecedents pending against her, and is ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed anticipatory bail for the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and confirmed that the underlying issue stems from a dispute between the parties in respect of erecting hoardings. He further conceded that many accused persons have already been arrested and released on bail, and that the petitioner has no prior criminal cases registered against her. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner.

5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6.Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the nature of the offences, the fact that the dispute arose primarily out of business rivalries regarding the erection of hoardings, the fact that the petitioner is the wife of the principal accused with no active custodial interrogation requirements, and also the fact that no previous case is pending against the petitioner, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions.

7.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Additional Mahila Court, Vellore on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judge concerned and on further condition that: [a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on every Saturday at 10.00 a.m for a period of four weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[b] the petitioner 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; [c] the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond 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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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 abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNSS, 2023.

14-05-2026 SHA

Note:

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

To:

1.The Additional Mahila Court, Vellore.

2.The Inspector of Police, Vellore South.

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

P.DHANABAL, J.

SHA 14-05-2026