Madhanraj v. The State Rep By. Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR 1.
Madhan Raj 2.
R.Kamaraj 3.
K.Neelaveni 4.
K.Thamilselvi ... Petitioners Vs.
The State Rep. By, Inspector of Police, AWPS - Maamalapuram.
Crime No.22 of 2025 ... Respondent 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 in Crime No.22 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioners :
Mr.S.N.S.Sudharshan For Respondent :
Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 1/6
O R D E R
The petitioners herein apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 85 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita r/w. Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act r/w. Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.22 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that, 1st petitioner is the husband and other petitioners are in-laws of the defacto complainant. The allegation against them is that the petitioners joined hands and demanded various kinds of dowry from the defacto complainant, since she was not able to give the same, she was harassed by the family members. On 25.08.2024, 1st petitioner had deserted the victim and subsequently blocked her phone number. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, in the year 2024, defacto complainant has initiated divorce proceedings and apart from that, defacto complainant has filed petition invoking protection of 2/6
women from domestic violence. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant/intervenor submitted that, jewels and other sreedhana articles were in the house of the petitioners and they have not returned the same fully.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that investigation is pending.
5. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels on either side and the fact that the defacto complainant has initiated divorce proceedings against the 1st petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions: 3/6
7. 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, Thirukazukunram, on condition that each of the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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 fails 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 (1 to 3) shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30.a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation and the fourth petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for 4/6
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. 13.10.2025 sma To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thirukazukunram.
2.The Inspector of Police, AWPS - Maamalapuram.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
sma 5/6
13.10.2025 6/6