Pushpanathan v. The State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.25232 of 2025

1. Pushpanathan

2. Lakshmanan

3. Vijayalakshmi ... Petitioners Vs.

The State Rep by Sub-Inspector of Police, Villupuram Taluk Police Station, Villupuram District.

... Respondent (Cr.No.575 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners or on their appearance before any Court in connection with the case in Cr.No.575 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police herein. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Pannerselvam For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/6

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Section 318(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 in Crime No.575 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners herein proposed the marriage between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant and the entire family was also agreed to proceed further and arranged the marriage between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant. Thereafter, engagement ceremony was performed and the marriage between them is also scheduled to be held on 04.09.2025. Before the marriage, the petitioner has married another girl. Further, it is alleged that at the time of marriage, the defacto complainant's family had given five sovereign of gold jewels to the first petitioner and spend Rs.10,00,000/- as marriage expenses and thereby the petitioners have cheated the defacto complainant and her family. Hence, the present case. 2/6

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the the first petitioner married another lady without the knowledge of the petitioners, who are 2 and 3. However, they are not stated any reasons for granting anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and reported that the first petitioner have accepted the engagement and the date fixed for marriage and suddenly without informing the defacto complainant and her family members, marred another lady. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the submissions made by both counsel, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions. . 3/6

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- [Rupees Three lakhs only ] to the credit of Crime No.575 of 2025 before the trial Court, on such deposit and production of proof, the petitioners 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 on which the order copy made, before the learned Additional Mahila Court, Villupuram on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute separate bonds for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition that:

(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; 4/6

(c) The petitioners shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter, 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 anticipatory 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 Act.

25.09.2025 Vv To

1. The Additional Mahila Court, Villupuram.

2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Villupuram Taluk Police Station, Villupuram District.

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

5/6

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

Vv Crl.O.P.No.25232 of 2025 +25.09.2025 6/6