Aneesh Reddy v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Aneesh Reddy

2. Nellipudi Pattabhi Reddy

3. Vidhyavathi Reddy ..Petitioners Vs State rep.by The Inspector of Police, W28 Kotturpuram AWPS, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600 028.

..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in AWPS Cr.No.0005/2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, W28 Kotturpuram All Women Police Station, Chennai. For Petitioners:

Ms.Ramya Shrinivas For Respondent:

Mr.N.Palanivel, Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 85, 316(2), 351(2) of BNS, 2023 and 3(1), 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in Crime No.0005 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek

anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the entire dispute arises out of matrimonial discord between the 1st petitioner and de facto complainant.which led to the initiation of the present criminal proceedings.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the de facto complainant has already filed divorce petition in O.P.No.386 of 2026 before the VII Additional Family Court, Chennai and in the meanwhile, the de facto complainant has filed this false complaint against these petitioners. 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 strongly opposed the grant of 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, from the perusal of records, it is observed that the issue is in respect of husband and wife namely A1 and the de facto complainant. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners are only in-laws. Considering the totality of the circumstances and upon the fact that the entire issue arisen due to matrimonial relationship and the considering the pendency of the divorce application, this Court is of the firm 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 IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, 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 1st and 2nd petitioners shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of one weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

(d) The 3rd petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., as and when required for interrogation;

(e) 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 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];

(f) If the petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

19-06-2026 SHL To

1. The IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

2. The Inspector of Police, W28 Kotturpuram AWPS, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600 028.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

SHL 19-06-2026