Govindaraj v. The State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25-10-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR GOVINDARAJ Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, A.W.P.S. Gudiyatham P.S. Vellore District, Tamil Nadu. (Crime.No.67/2025) Respondent(s) PRAYER This petition has filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime.No.67/2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.E.Kannadasan For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate Crl.side

ORDER

The petitioner herein apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 351(2), 75(1)(ii), 85 of BNS 2023 r/w. 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act (under sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(i), 354, 498(A) of IPC) in Crime No.67 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory

bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was married to the petitioner's son, A-1 Ilangovan, on 14.06.2017 and was presented with 15 sovereigns of gold jewels. After a few months of cohabitation, the petitioner and defacto complainant's mother-in-law took away the jewels and subjected the defacto complainant to cruelty and harassment, including dowry demands and physical assault. When defacto complainant's father visited her matrimonial home, and questioned A-1 about his activities, he was also threatened with dire consequences. Hence the complaint has been lodged.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the majority of the allegation levelled in the FIR was taken place prior to 2021 and in this regard, there were two complaints lodged by the defacto complainant and matrimonial dispute for divorce was also pending and subsequently it was dismissed. He further submitted that on the date of occurrence, the defacto complainant only visited the house of the petitioner and quarrelled and thereafter, a false complaint has been lodged against him. Hence, he prayed for

grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reported that the FIR was registered only recently and the investigation in this case is pending. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the FIR, it reveals that the majority of the allegation levelled against the petitioner herein was taken place prior to 2021; in this regard, already matrimonial proceedings initiated between the A1 and the defacto complainant, I am of the view that custodial interrogation in this case is not necessary, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned J.M. Gudiyatham, on condition that the petitioner 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 petitioner 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; [b] the petitioner 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; [d] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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.

25-10-2025 gbi Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

To 1.The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, A.W.P.S.

Gudiyatham P.S. Vellore District, Tamil Nadu. (Crime.No.67/2025) 2.The J.M. Gudiyatham.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR J.

gbi CRL OP No. 28928 of 25-10-2025