Kamaladevi v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Kamaladevi

2. Anjali ... Petitioners Vs.

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kunnam Police Station, Perambalur District.

Crime No.217 of 2026.

... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest in connection with the Crime No.217 of 2026 on the file of the respondent Police.

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Syed Ismail For Respondent : Mrs.R.S.Indira Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 133, 303(2) and 351(2) of BNS in Crime No.217 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail. 1/6

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 13.05.2026, the de-facto complainant had come from Chennai to attend a temple festival at Mariyamman Kovil, Veeramanalur, Kunnam, and was staying at her grandmother's house. At that time, the petitioners allegedly came to the said house and picked up a quarrel with the de-facto complainant in connection with an alleged illicit relationship involving her husband, Velu. During the course of the quarrel, the petitioners are alleged to have abused the de-facto complainant in filthy language, assaulted her, and snatched her Thaali chain, causing injuries. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit 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 vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

2/6

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

6. From the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and the materials available on record, it is seen that the entire issue arises out of a matrimonial dispute, wherein the allegation is that the de-facto complainant's husband had an illicit relationship with A1, namely, the first petitioner. In that connection, a wordy altercation and quarrel had taken place between the parties. According to the prosecution, the petitioners had stolen 3.5 sovereigns of gold jewels, which have not yet been recovered. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 13.05.2026, whereas the complaint came to be registered only on 08.06.2026. Considering the delay in the registration of the complaint, the nature of the allegations, and the fact that the petitioners are women, this Court is of the firm view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not 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, Kunnam on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond 3/6

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 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 daily 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 abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

25.06.2026 kv 4/6

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Kunnam.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kunnam Police Station, Perambalur District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 5/6

C.KUMARAPPAN.J.

kv 25.06.2026 6/6