Amuthapriya v. The State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Amuthapriya

2. Dhanalakshmi ..Petitioners Vs The state rep.by The Inspector of Police, Sendurai Police Station, Ariyalur District.

[Cr.No.164 of 2026] ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner herein on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in connection with the Cr.No.164 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioners:

Mr. R.Rajasekar For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioners apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 296(6), 115(2), 118(1) & 351(3) of BNS (294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) of IPC) in Crime No. 164 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused and the de facto complainant belongs to the same village and for the purchase of a property, there arose a dispute and subsequently led to a wordy quarrel. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted the de facto complainant is other than father of first petitioner and the second petitioner is a relative. The allegation is that the petitioners threatened the de facto complainant to transfer the land in the name of 1st petitioner. He submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that they are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that no one has sustained any injuries. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and from the submission of the learned Govt Advocate (Crl.Side), it is observed that no one sustained any injuries. Considering the totality of the circumstances and upon the fact that the first petitioner and de facto complainant being daughter and father, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required at this stage. 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, Sendurai, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate 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 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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 absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

18-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order SHL To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Sendurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Sendurai Police Station, Ariyalur District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

SHL 18-06-2026