Ramamurthi v. State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25-11-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
1. Ramamurthi
2. Akash Aghustin Petitioner(s) Vs State of Tamil Nadu represented by Inspector of Police Virudampet Police Station, Vellore District. (CrimeNo-119 of 2025 Respondent(s) PRAYER Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., to enlarge the petitioner on Anticipatory Bail in the event of arrest by the respondent police in Crime No 119 of 2025 on the file of respondent police. For Petitioner(s):
Mr.Thangavel M R For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Udaya Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest by the respondent police for the
offences punishable under Sections 299, 302, 303(2), 65, 77, 296(b), 324(2), 78, 35, 351(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 67A of Information Technology Act 2000 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment Act and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (Corresponding Sections 295(A), 298, 379, 498(A), 354(C), 354(D), 294(b), 426, 97, 506(i) of IPC, 1860, in Crime No.119 of 2025 seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the 2nd petitioner married the defacto complainant on 24.01.2025 as per Christion rituals and again on 17.02.2025 as per Hindu rites. The 2nd petitioner, allegedly instigated by other accused including the 1st petitioner, demanded Rs.10,00,000/- for a honeymoon and harassed the defacto complainant. The further allegation is that the 2nd petitioner has stolen a gold chain and Apple Watch of the defacto complainant. Hence the case.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are false and imaginary and since there was a misunderstanding between the husband and wife, a false complaint has been registered. He further submitted that the matter has been settled between the petitioners and the defacto complainant and a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding has also filed. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent reported that the FIR was registered only recently and the investigation in this case is pending. Hence, he opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5.Taking into consideration the facts and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also considering the fact that the matter has been compromised between the parties, and Memorandum of Understanding also entered between them, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.
5. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the learned Additional Mahila Court, Vellore, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only), each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: (a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and left
thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;
(b) the 1st petitioner is a being senior citizen shall report before the respondent police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of one week and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; and as far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned that he 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;
(c) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
(d) the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action 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 Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and;
(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.
25-11-2025 gbi
To 1.State of Tamil Nadu represented by Inspector of Police Virudampet Police Station, Vellore District. (CrimeNo-119 of 2025 2.The Additional Mahila Court, Vellore.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
K.RAJASEKAR J.
gbi CRL OP No. 32110 of 25-11-2025