Devendran.D v. The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

1. Devendran.D 2.Dhayalan 3.Parvathi Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Inspector of Police w-36,All Women Police Station, Puzhal, Thiruvallur District Crime No.29 of 2025 Respondent(s) PRAYER To enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest concerned in Crime No.29 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, W-36, All Women Police Station, Puzhal, Thiruvallur Disrict on such terms and conditions For Petitioner(s):

Angamuthu S For Respondent(s):

Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioners / Accused 1-3, who apprehend arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 85 of BNS Act in connection with the case in Crime No.29 of 2025, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.07.2025 marriage was solemnized between the defacto complainant and the first petitioner, which was the second marriage for the defacto complainant and first marriage for the first petitioner. The marriage was solemnized on the assurance given by the defacto complainant that she got proper divorce from the competent Court, but however failed to produce the same to the first petitioner after marriage. On 27.09.2025, there was verbal altercation between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant regarding the court decree of divorce and the defacto complainant left the matrimonial home and lodged a complaint with the respondent herein stating that the petitioners cruelly treated her in the matrimonial home and she consumed phenyl and two sleeping tablets.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners are innocent; that there exists a family dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant; that they have been falsely implicated in this case and that the custodial interrogation is not required in this case and hence prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that there exists a family dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant; that the petitioners are the husband and in-laws of the defacto complainant and no previous cases are pending against the petitioners and the

offences are grave in nature, hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the nature of allegations, the relationship and the matrimonial dispute between the parties; no previous cases are pending against the petitioners and since the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners on certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Madhavaram on condition that the petitioners shall execute a 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 respondent Police or the Police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further conditions that:

[a] the petitioners and 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent police every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks; [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].

[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

30-12-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes ab

Note:

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the official website of this Court.

2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in official website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

To 1.The Inspector of Police w-36,All Women Police Station, Puzhal, Thiruvallur District Crime No.29 of 2025 2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

3. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Madhavaram.

P.DHANABAL J.

ab CRL OP No. 35873 of 30-12-2025