Hemlatha v. State Rep. By Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-09-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
1. Hemalatha
2. MURALI
3. VINAYAGAM
4. Gandhi @ Karthi Petitioners Vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police Redhills Police Station, Avadi City.
Respondent(s) PRAYER Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioners on Anticipatory bail, in the event of their arrest, concerned in Cr.No. 537 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent police.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.Amarnath Srinivasan For Respondent(s):
Advocate (Crl.Side) Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The Petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 329(2), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 324(4) & 351(2) of BNS, in Crime No.537 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that according to the prosecution's case, the defacto complainant, Nagavalli, lodged a complaint stating that she had an alleged illicit relationship with Karthick, the husband of Manimozhi (A1). Despite Manimozhi's warnings to end the relationship, Nagavalli continued it. On August 2, 2025, at around 4.30 pm, Manimozhi, along with her relatives, including her mother and sister, allegedly attacked Nagavalli at her house, stole 10 sovereigns of gold jewellery, including her mangalsutra and a mobile phone, damaged a washing machine, and threatened her with dire consequences. The complaint was obtained by the Sub-Inspector of the respondent police station while Nagavalli was an inpatient at Sri Venkateswara Private Hosptal. Hence, the case.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons, and due to previous enmity, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case; that the petitioners and the complainant are known to each other; and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in this case and hence, prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent reiterated the prosecution case and on instructions submitted that the co-accused was arrested and subsequently enlarged on bail. He would further submit that the 2 nd petitioner/Murali and the 3 rd petitioner/Vinayagam are not arrayed as accused persons.
5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
6.Considering the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), the petitioners 2 and 3 are not arrayed as an accused. Hence, this Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition as far as the petitioners 2 and 3.
7.Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, and since, custodial interrogation is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 1 and 4 with certain conditions.
8. Accordingly, the petitioners 1 and 4 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 of receipt of a copy of this order before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri, Tiruvallur District, on condition that the petitioners 1 and 4 shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each, with two sureties, out of which one surety must be a blood related surety 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 further condition that: (a) the petitioners 1 and 4 shall deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) totally, to the credit of Crime No.537 of 2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri, Tiruvallur District, within a period of three weeks. On such deposit being made, the defacto complainant is directed to withdraw the same on filling undertaking affidavit and on proper identification and acknowledgment;
(b) the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;
(c) the 1 st petitioner/Hemalatha shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation and the 4 th petitioner/Gandhi @ Karthi shall report before the respondent police on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for the period of six weeks;
(d) the petitioners 1 and 4 shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (e) the petitioners 1 and 4 shall not abscond either during
investigation or trial;
(f) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners 1 and 4 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 1 and 4 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]; and;
(g) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.
12-09-2025 gbi Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Note :
1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.
2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.
To 1.State Rep. by Inspector of Police Redhills Police Station, Avadi City.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri, Tiruvallur District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
T.V.THAMILSELVI J.
gbi CRL OP No. 24501 of 12-09-2025