Joel Leslie Richardson v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Palayamkottai

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 03.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 572 of 2026 1.Joel Leslie Richardson 2.Pottu Sylvia Alicesa ... Petitioners Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

(Crime No.3 of 2026)

...Respondents/Complainant

For Petitioners : Ms.S.Ragaventhre Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. side) For Intervenor : Mr.R.L.Dilipan Pandian PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 3 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 194(3)(i) altered into 108 of BNS, in 1/6

Crime No.3 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the mother of the deceased. She lodged a complaint stating that her daughter married the first accused. His parents harassed her daughter demanding more dowry. The also pressured her daughter to execute a document in favour of the first accused in respect of the land exists in the name of her daughter. Thereafter on 31.12.2025, the first accused who is the husband of her daughter informed the defacto complainant that her daughter attempted to commit suicide by hanging herself. Though she was secured to the hospital, where she succumbed to her injuries. Due the torture given by the accused persons, the deceased committed suicide. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are in no way connected in the above said incident. They have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The first accused married the deceased and lead separate matrimonial life. Already they have been informed that the deceased frequently picked up quarrel with the first accused. The deceased was also 2/6

suffering from Psychiatric issues and she herself decided to commit suicide and done so. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the offences are grave in nature. Due to the harassment made by the accused persons demanding more dowry and the torture given by them physically and mentally, the deceased committed suicide. The petitioners have no previous case. He vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.

6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners, considering that there is family dispute between the parties, this Court also granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners on some conditions in respect of the custody of the children, according to the petitioners, the children are not ready to go along with the defacto complainant, the petitioners have no previous case and they are only the in-laws of the deceased and also considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:

3/6

[a] 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 on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police at 10.30 a.m., on every Saturday for a period of four weeks, thereafter, as and when required for interrogation:

[c] the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature.

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions 4/6

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

(P D B J) 03.06.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli.

2.The Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

(Crime No.3 of 2026) 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 572 of 2026 Date : 03.06.2026 6/6