Udayan E v. The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
1. Udayan E No. 19/14, Vanniyar Sreet, Kaladipet, Tiruvottiyur, Chennai - 600019
2. Elangovan No. 19/14, Vanniyar Sreet, Kaladipet, Tiruvottiyur, Chennai - 600019
3. Chitra No. 19/14, Vanniyar Sreet, Kaladipet, Tiruvottiyur, Chennai - 600019
4. Ashwin E No. 19/14, Vanniyar Sreet, Kaladipet, Tiruvottiyur, Chennai - 600019 ..Petitioner(s) Vs The state represented by:
The Inspector of police W14, All women police station, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai.
Crime no.12 of 2026No. 19/14, Vanniyar Sreet, Kaladipet, Tiruvottiyur, Chennai - 600019.
..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners No.1 to 4 on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent police concerned in Crime No.12 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s):
M/S. Santosh S For Respondent(s):
Mr. N. Palanivel, Government Advocate (Criminal Side).
ORDER
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 85 of B.N.S. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.12 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the 1st petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the parents of the 1st petitioner and the 4th petitioner is the younger brother of the 1st petitioner. The marriage between the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant was solemnized on 12.03.2025. Due to the misunderstanding, matrimonial disputes arose between the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant. The petitioners committed cruelty and harassed the defacto complainant by demanding dowry. Hence the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and according to the prosecution, the petitioners have committed cruelty and dowry harassment. At this juncture, the learned counsel would submit that the said allegations are absolutely false, fabricated and concocted and they have not involved in any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would also submit that the mediation process is going on and in the mediation, they have compromised the issue and the petitioners will enter
into a Mediation agreement and if no mediation agreement is entered into, the defacto complainant is given liberty to move an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police has reiterated the prosecution case and opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. Though the above said factum of Mediation settlement was not confirmed by the learned Government Advocate, considering the fact that the nature of dispute is matrimonial, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required and therefore, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions:
7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory 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 is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai, on condition that the petitioners
shall each 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 petitioners fail to surrender before the concerned 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 3rd petitioner, being a woman and aged about 52 years, shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation and all the other petitioners 1,2 and 4 shall appear and sign before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., and 5.30 p.m., for a period of two 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.
24-06-2026 MJS 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.
l To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police, W14, All Women Police Station, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
MJS 24-06-2026