Karikalan v. State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25-09-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CRL OP NO. 19951 of 2025 Karikalan Petitioner Vs The State rep. by The Inspector of Police All Women's Police Station, Mannargudi Thiruvarur District.
Crime No. 18 of 2025.
Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest pending investigation in Cr.No. 18 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Pragadeesh Kumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side) ----
O R D E R
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 498(A) of IPC, 1860 and 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 in 1/5
Crime No. 18 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The allegation against the petitioner is that the marriage was solemnized on 08.03.2020 between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner was continuously abused, harassed and beaten her by the petitioner herein. Due to some difference of opinion between them, the de-facto complainant thrown out from the matrimonial home. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had availed a loan amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from Equates Bank by putting signature of the de-facto complainant as a witness in the loan form. Now, the bank officials harassing the de-facto complainant to repay the loan amount if the petitioner fails to repay the loan EMI. Hence the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to furnish sufficient solvent sureties for his release. 2/5
Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submits that the petitioner had physically abused the de-facto complainant, fabricated documents with the intent of extracting money from her and the petitioner had involved in various harassment of women's Act. However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had involved in various types of Harassment of de-facto complainant includes demanded more dowry from the de-facto complainant; this Court is not inclined to allow this Criminal Original Petition.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 25.09.2025 MSM 3/5
To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Mannargudi.
2.The Inspector of Police All Women's Police Station, Mannargudi Thiruvarur District.
Crime No. 18 of 2025.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 4/5
K.RAJASEKAR , J.
MSM CRL OP NO. 19951 of 2025 25.09.2025 5/5