Sasikala v. The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR 1.Sasikala 2.T.Karthickraja ... Petitioners ** Amended as per order of this Court dated 24.09.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.18035 of 2025 in Vs.
The Inspector of Police, Manimangalam Police Station, Manimangalam, Chennai.
Crime No.160 of 2025 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail to the petitioners in the event of their arrest in Crime No.160 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners :
Mr.Dhana Sekar For Intervener :
Mr.G.Murugendran For Respondent :
Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 1/8
O R D E R
The petitioners were apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 194(3)(iii) of BNSS altered into Section 103(1) of BNS, in Crime No.160 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant's sister, namely Stephemetilda, and Rajmohan (A1) had a love marriage on 19.02.2024. Both were employed and A1 was working at Macro Plastic, Thirumudivakkam, and Stephemetilda at Sutherland. The marriage was an inter-religious and inter-caste marriage. A girl child, Yuthikasri, was born to them on 29.12.2024. The couple resided at Varatharajapuram, Ashtalakshmi Nagar, Chennai, and were having constant disputes. On 01.05.2025, at midnight Accused No.1 - husband of deceased developed quarrel and attacked her with hand and dashed her head on the door caused severe injuries which resulted in death.
2/8
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased. The petitioners are innocent persons and have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is further submitted that on 04.09.2025, coaccused A1 was granted bail by the Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, in Crl.M.P.No.1692 of 2025. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the intervener vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and contended that the petitioners, along with the other co-accused, demanded 100 sovereigns of gold, a car, and cash as dowry. It is submitted that the victim's family had already given 40 sovereigns of gold, a bike worth Rs.2 lakhs, and Rs.10,00,000/-. However, the petitioners again demanded additional dowry and continuously tortured and harassed the deceased. It is further alleged that, on 03.05.2025, the petitioners, along with the other co-accused, assaulted the deceased and caused her death.
3/8
5. He further relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shabeen Ahmad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, reported in (2025) 4 SCC 172.
6. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police also opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, reiterating the prosecution case, and submitted that the co-accused, A1 and the deceased had a love-cum-arranged marriage and a 4-month-old girl child. However, there had been frequent quarrels over dowry demands by A1 and his family members. On 01.05.2025, at about 3:45 a.m., a quarrel over dowry allegedly led to an assault, which resulted in the deceased's death. The postmortem certificate confirms multiple reddish-brown abrasions on her body, indicating severe injuries. He further submitted that co-accused A1 was already released on default bail since the final report was not filed in time. Now the investigation has been completed, the final report has also been filed, and a copy of the same has been produced.
7. Considering the nature of the allegations and co-accused already released on bail, these petitioners had not attacked the deceased, final report 4/8
also already filed, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions:
8. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, on condition that the petitioners 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 that:
[a] if the petitioners fail to surrender before the concerned Magistrate, within a period of ten 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 the identity proofs to ensure their identity;
[c] the petitioners shall stay at Karaikudi and report before the Karaikudi Town Police Station daily 5/8
at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks, and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [d] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the aforementioned 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 vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];
[e] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 24.09.2025 cda 6/8
To 1.The Judicial Magistrate Judge, Sriperumbudur. 2.The Inspector of Police, Manimangalam Police Station, Manimangalam, Chennai.
3.The Karaikudi Town Police Station, Sivagangai District.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
7/8
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
cda 24.09.2025 8/8