Ranjani v. The State Rep By Thh Inspector 0f Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24-09-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
1. RANJANI D/o.Kanan, No. 89,Ellaiyamman kovil street, Anumanthai Kuppam, Villupuram District -604 303 Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The state Rep by The INSPECTOR OF POLICE, Fishing Harbour police station, Chennai District. (Crime No. 222 of 2025) Respondent(s) PRAYER To enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with Crime No. 222 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s):
U Kathiravan G.Anand Kumar M.Praveen Kumar
R.Rajesh S.Vignesh R.Mohan For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 75(2), 77, 79, 351(3) of BNS in Crime No.222 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is arrayed as A2. Her husband was having an illicit affair with the defacto complainant, and they exchanged explicit materials while chatting. The petitioner saw these materials, went to the house of the defacto complainant's house and confronted her about it. Hence the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cell phone was already handed over to the police during the enquiry and she is ready to abide with any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and therefore, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the petitioner went to the house of the defacto complainant and abused her in filthy language. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Considering the fact that the police have already recovered the cell phone, and the petitioner only questioned the defacto complainant about the illicit affair, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, 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 of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition:
(a) If the petitioners 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 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 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.
24-09-2025 mpa Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes
To 1.XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. 2.The state Rep by The INSPECTOR OF POLICE, Fishing Harbour police station, Chennai District. (Crime No. 222 of 2025) 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
K.RAJASEKAR J.
mpa CRL OP No. 22985 of 24-09-2025