Sakthivel v. State By, Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.19403 of 2025 Sakthivel ... Petitioner Vs.

State by Inspector of Police, AWPS-Sirkazhi, Mayiladuthurai District.

... Respondent (Cr.No.12 of 2023).

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police in the case pending investigation in Cr.No.12 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police. .

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thamaraiselvan For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 143, 294(b), 498A and 506(1) of IPC in Cr.No.12 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. 1/6

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is the husband of the petitioner, after marriage, he has demanded a car. Since the family of the defacto complainant was not able to purchase the car, the petitioner has abused and harassed her. Further, the petitioner left for Singapore alone. Further, the family members of the accused has not given food to her, while she was in the matrimonial home. Hence, the present case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this petitioner has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that after the marriage, the couple resided together only for a few days, and thereafter, the petitioner left for Singapore alone. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and reported that the petitioner herein arrayed as A1, who is the husband of the defacto 2/6

complainant. A2 to A4, who are the in-laws of the defacto complainant, have already been enlarged on bail. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by both counsels, the allegations levelled against the petitioner and and taking note of the fact that the co-accused are already enlarged on bail, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to 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 (15) days from the date on which the order copy made, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sirkazhi on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition that:

3/6

(a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three 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 petitioner 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]; (e)If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

25.09.2025 Vv 4/6

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Sirkazhi

2. The Inspector of Police, AWPS-Sirkazhi, Mayiladuthurai District.

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

5/6

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

Vv Crl.O.P.No.19403 of 2025 25.09.2025 6/6