C.Sanjeev v. The State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26-09-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

1. C.Sanjeev S/o.R.E.Chandrasekar, No.5051/1-H, Block, 28th Street, Ponni Colony, Anna Nagar West, Chennai -600040.

Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, W-21, All Women Police Station, Guindy, Chennai-600 081.

Respondent(s) PRAYER To enlarge the petitioner on bail at the time of his arrest in Crime No.6 of 2025 on the file of the respondent herein and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

V.Sithannan S.Prabhu For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl.side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 85 and 115 of BNS Act in Crime No.6 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he married the victim girl in the year 2016, and after living together for some time, he began harassing her, forcing her to obtain loans for his benefit. It is further alleged that the petitioner started physically abusing the defacto complainant. Unable to bear this, she left and began living separately. Subsequently, while she was at a hotel with her boy friend, the petitioner went there, attacked her indiscriminately, and caused severe injuries. It is also stated that the petitioner's father attacked her after they reached the room. Additionally, there are several other allegations against this petitioner, including threatening the de facto complainant. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the de facto complainant separated in the month of July 2025. He stated that the

petitioner saw the victim with her paramour in a hotel, and when he questioned this, the de facto complainant took advantage of the situation lodged a false complaint. He further submitted that he is taking care of the child. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) reported that the FIR was registered on 23.08.2025, and it contains several allegations, including an attack on the de facto complainant. He further submitted that the investigation is pending and the petitioner is having bad antecedents. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have also gone through the FIR and it contains a series of various allegations against this petitioner. Although it is stated that the petitioner initiated divorce proceedings after the complaint was lodged, I am of the view that granting anticipatory bail is not appropriate. Further, considering the petitioner's involvement in similar offenses, I am not inclined to grant

anticipatory bail.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 26-09-2025 Mpa Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To 1.The Metropolitan Magistrate-IX, Saidapet, Chennai. 2.The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, W-21, All Women Police Station, Guindy, Chennai-600 081.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR J.

mpa CRL OP No. 26593 of 26-09-2025