Chidambaram Pillai v. The State Of Tamilnadu,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26-09-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

1. Chidambaram Pillai S/o. Ganesan, No. 402/10, MGR Nagar, Mukkandappalai, Hosur, Krishnagiri District and another

2. C.Selvakumari W/o.Chidambaram Pillai, No. 402/10, MGR Nagar, Mukkandappalai, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The State of Tamilnadu, Represented by Inspector of police, w5, All Women Police Station, Selaiyur, Chennai.

Respondent(s) PRAYER To enlarge the petitioners/accused 2 and 3 on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 37/2025 on the file of the Respondent.

For Petitioner(s):

C K M Appaji S.Shanmugam V.Shunmugam M.Subha S.S.Suthakaran For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl.side) For Intervener : Mr.P.Raja

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Section 498A of IPC and section 4 of the DP Act in Crime No.37 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners, are the parents-in-law of the de facto complainant, and they demanded various properties and money for the continuation of the matrimonial life. Hence the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted the petitioners are innocent and have not committed the offences alleged by the defacto complainant. He further submitted that the husband of the defacto complainant resides in Canada and that the petitioners never demanded any money. All the

gold jewels belonging to the de facto complainant have already been returned to her, and the petitioners had no objection to allow her to take back her articles. He also submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide with any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and therefore, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned counsel for the Intervener, submitted that the petitioners demanded money and detained the de facto complainant's household articles and also harassing her while she was in the house.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police, reported that in this case, the FIR was registered only on 09.09.2025, after a CSR inquiry was conducted. He further submitted that the husband is in abroad, and the investigation is also pending. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. I have also gone through the FIR and found that the majority of the allegations are against the husband, and that he failed to take her to Canada and began neglecting her. Documents related to the handing over of jewels have also

been produced before this court and the same is also acknowledged by the intervener. I am of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in this case. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, 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 ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Tambaram on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), each 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 petitioners 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.

(f) The petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation by handing over the household articles to the de facto complainant. 26-09-2025 Mpa Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To

1. The Judicial Magistrate-II, Tambaram.

2.The State of Tamilnadu, Represented by Inspector of police, w5, All Women Police Station, Selaiyur, Chennai.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR J.

mpa CRL OP No. 26687 of 26-09-2025