Rajeswari v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Rural Awps

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 09/01/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

1. Rajeswari

2. Priyadharshini

3. Manikandan

4. Nagaraj

5. N.Pappathi ... Petitioners/Accused Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Rural All Women Police Station, Sanarpatty, Dindigul District.

Crime No.61 of 2025. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : S.Sarvagan Prabhu, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PRAYER :- C-29AB. For Anticipatory Bail in Crime no.61 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/6

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 323, 506(2) of IPC, corresponding offence under Sections 85, 296(b), 115(2), 351(2) of BNS, and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 2002, in Crime No.61 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and other accused persons are relatives of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant is the wife of A1 and the accused harassed the defacto complainant demanding additional dowry. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any conditions which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 2/6

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the petitioners are in-laws of the defacto complainant and it is a matrimonial dispute. However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and since the petitioners are in-laws of the defacto complainant, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, on condition that each of the petitioner 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 learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Dindigul, Dindigul District, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy is made ready and on further conditions that:

3/6

[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 Aadhaar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required;

[c]the petitioners shall not tamper with the 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 are released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid 4/6

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

[f]If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

09.01.2026 PJL TO

1. Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Rural All Women Police Station, Sanarpatty, Dindigul District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

S.SRIMATHY,J PJL

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.512 of 2026 Date : 09/01/2026 6/6