Gnanavel v. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 26.12.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL 1.Gnanavel 2.Rukkumani ... Petitioners/ Accused 1 & 2 Vs State Rep. by The Inspector of Police Alangayam Police Station Tirupattur District.
(Crime No.149/2025) ... Respondent / Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.E.Kannadasan For Respondent : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioners / Accused Nos.1 & 2, who apprehend arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2) of BNS 2023 in connection with the Cr.No.149 of 2025, seek anticipatory bail.
1/5
2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a matrimonial dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, due to which, the petitioners had assaulted the defacto complainant. Out of frustration, the defacto complainant had consumed phenol and was admitted in the hospital. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioners have not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions imposed by this Court. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submits that the major allegation against the petitioners is that they have assaulted the defacto complainant. An FIR was on 25.10.2025 and the investigation is still pending. This is the second anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner and the earlier petition filed by the petitioner in Crl.OP.No.29879/2025 was dismissed by this Court on 04.11.2025. Hence, he vehemently opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 2/5
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the nature of offences and the relationship between the parties and there appears to be a matrimonial dispute pending between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tirupattur, on condition that the petitioners shall execute separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:
[a] the petitioners shall report before the respondent on every Saturday for a period of four weeks.
[b] the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to 3/5
dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; [c] the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;
[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].
[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.2023.
26.12.2025 ds/nvi 4/5
P.DHANABAL, J., ds/nvi 06.
26.12.2025 5/5