V Raambalaji v. State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11.12.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR 1.Raambalaji 2.Adityakumar 3.Venkatgiri 4.Vijaya ... Petitioners -vsState Rep by, The Inspector of Police Annur Police Station, Annur, Coimbatore District.

(Crime No.602 of 2025) ... Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.602 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners :

M/S.Jessy Monica For Respondent :

M/s.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ********** 1/6

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2) of BNS and section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 in Crime No. 602 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant, and the other petitioners are in-laws of the defacto complainant. It is alleged that after the marriage, the 1st petitioner/husband used to regularly attack her and scold her. After some time she became pregnant and she went to her parents' house for delivery. The 1st petitioner continuousely harassed her even after delivered child. On the date of occurrence the 1st petitioner quarreled with the family members, went away to his parents' house and came back with his family members and threatened the parents of the defacto complainant and the 1st petitioner attacked the defacto complainant with chair, also caused severe injuries and criminally threatened her. It is further alleged that the other petitioners are also attacked the defacto complainant.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the defacto complainant did not properly feed the just-born baby; hence, the family members went to the house of the defacto complainant, questioned and resolved the dispute between the family members. However, there was a quarrel; hence, they 2/6

returned back and they are not attacked the defacto complainant. Hence, he prays for grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the defacto complainant also suffered grievous injuries and she also taken treatment in the hospital and there was a delay in lodging the complaint. Hence, opposed for grant of bail to the petitioners.

5.Considering the facts and averments made in the FIR, I am of the view that the 1st petitioner caused severe injuries to the defacto complainant, who had just delivered a baby and was also abused her with dire consequences, resulting in the issuance of a legal notice between the parties. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed insofar as 1st petitioner is concerned. As far as other petitioners concerned, the allegations are not so serious, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 2 to 4 with certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioners 2 to 4 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 District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Annur, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a separate 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 3/6

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 everyday at 05.30 p.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, 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];

4/6

(e) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

11.12.2025 mpa To 1.The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Annur. 2.The Inspector of Police Annur Police Station, Annur, Coimbatore District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

5/6

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

mpa 11.12.2025 6/6