Parameswari v. The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Parameswari ... Petitioner Vs.

The Inspector of Police, Ambur Taluk Police Station, Ambur, Tirupattur (District) (Cr.No.127 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of the arrest by the respondent police in Cr.No.127 of 2025 dated 02.06.2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Ambur Taluk Police Station, Ambur, Tirupattur District.

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Pachaiyappan For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/6

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offences under Section 296(b), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS and under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 (U/s 294(b), 324, 506(2) of IPC) in Cr.No.127 of 2025 dated 02.06.2025 on the file of the respondent, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with her husband had attacked the defacto complainant and also abused with filthy. Hence the case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner is ready to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the accused persons A1 and A2 are wife and husband. A2 had illegal love affair with the defacto complainant. Later, the Panchayat was conducted by the Villagers and separated A2 and the defacto complainant and warned A2. On the date of 2/6

occurrence, there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioner/A1 and the defacto complainant and A2 joined with them. In this regard, A1 had assaulted the defacto complainant and also abused her . Hence, he opposed for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either sides and taking note of the nature of the allegations and since, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambur 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that: [a] if the petitioner fails to surrender before the said 3/6

Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, 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 the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial and they shall make themselves available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; [e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de facto complainant and witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[f] the petitioner to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard; [g] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the 4/6

petitionerd released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court themselves as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283]; [h] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

30.07.2025 Vv To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Ambur.

2. The Inspector of Police, Ambur Taluk Police Station, Ambur, Tirupattur (District) 3.The Public Prosecutor,High Court of Madras. 5/6

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

Vv Crl.O.P.No.18772 of 2025 30.07.2025 6/6