K Sundari v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1.K Sundari W/o Kanagaraj, Door no.94, House No.94(1), Mettu Street, Madhur Post, Madhuranthangam Circle, Kancheepuram-603 201.

2. K Nandhini W/o Shanmugam, Kaliyamman Kovil Street, Olakkur Kilpadi , Villupuram, Tindivanam -604305.

3. M Shanmugam S/o Munuswamy, Kaliyamman Kovil Street, Olakkur Kilpadi Villupuram, Tindivanam -604305 ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Ramapuram Police Station, Chennai.

Crime No.346 of 2025 ..Respondent(s)

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.346 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.G.Nirmal Krishnan For Respondent(s):

Ms.R.S.Indira, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)_

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Section 194(3)(iii) of BNSS @ 80(2) of BNS 2023 in Crime No.346 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. According to allegations mentioned in the F.I.R, on the fateful day, on account of dowry demand made by the husband of the deceased (A1) as well as the present petitioners, the deceased committed suicide. The first petitioner is A1's mother and mother-in-law of the deceased. The second petitioner is A1's sister and the first petitioner's daughter and sister-in-law of the deceased. The third petitioner is the husband of the second petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in-laws of the deceased and they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that A1 is still in jail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent-Police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that due to demand of dowry made by the accused, the deceased committed suicide. Hence, she opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials available on record.

6. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances and the fact that the first and second petitioners being women, this Court of the view that at this length of time, no custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on 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 No.-I, Poonamallee on condition that the petitioners 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 petitioners fail 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 slip (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identity proofs to ensure their identity;

(c) The petitioners shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of thirty days 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners are 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 petitioners thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

08-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order MFA

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee.

2. The Inspector of Police Ramapuram Police Station, Chennai.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J MFA 08-06-2026