Saranraj v. State Rep By Its, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 31.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR 1.Saranraj 2.Settu 3.Gowsalya .. Petitioners/A1 to A3 Vs.
The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Arakkonam, Ranipet District.
(Crime No.49 of 2025) .. Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.49 of 2025 pending on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioners : Mr.D.Dayalan For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Page No.1 of 6
ORDER
The petitioners were apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 69, 318(2), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Act 2023 (294(b), 376, 417, 506(i) of IPC) and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in Crime No.49 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner's families were introduced by a marriage broker, viz., Sekar. On 03.02.2025, the petitioners visited the informant's house and accepted the marriage proposal between the 1st petitioner and the informant. Both families agreed to the marriage on 13.07.2025 and settled on 11 sovereign jewelry and Rs.1,00,000/- cash for household articles. The 1st petitioner allegedly made false promises to marry the informant, entered into a physical relationship, and later refused to marry her. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners demanded dowry of 15 sovereign jewelry. Hence, the case.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that issue between the petitioners and the defacto complainant has been resolved, and Page No.2 of 6
the case can likely be withdrawn.
4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent Police submitted that the police were informed through a phone call by the defacto complainant that the issue had been negotiated.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.
6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Arakkonam, on condition that the petitioners 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, and on proof of payment of deposits, failing Page No.3 of 6
which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:
[a] if the petitioners fails to surrender before the said 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 Suretyship [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 as and when required for interrogation; [d] the petitioners 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;
[e] the petitioners shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police office as and when required; [f] the petitioners 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] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
Page No.4 of 6
[h] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];
[i] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.
31.07.2025 cda To 1.The Judicial Magistrate-I, Arakkonam.
2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Arakkonam, Ranipet District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
Page No.5 of 6
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cda 31.07.2025 Page No.6 of 6