Prabhakaran v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Awps-Karur

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 20.01.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

1. Prabhakarab

2. Mathiyalagan

3. Chithra ... Petitioners/Accused Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.By, the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Karur.

(Crime No.42 of 2025 ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.J.Imran khan Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervenor : Mr.C.M.Mari Chelliah Prabhu PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.42 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.

1/7

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 318(2), 82, 351(2) and 85 of BNS, in Crime No.42 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the 1st petitioner suppressed material facts and married the defacto complainant. It is alleged that the 1st petitioner had sexual intercourse with her, as a result of which she became pregnant. Subsequently, the defacto complainant came to know that the 1st petitioner was already married and was not a divorcee, and that she had therefore been cheated, leading to the filing of the present 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 de facto complainant, with the intention of getting the petitioner's property transferred in her name, has lodged a false complaint. He further 2/7

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.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are no previous case pending against the petitioners and the investigation is still pending. However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel for the Intervenor/defacto complainant submitted that the petitioners have cheated the defacto complainant, Hence, he strongly opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that there was a family dispute and there are no previous case pending against the petitioners. Further, the specific overt act against the 1st petitioner, therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 1st petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is 3/7

dismissed in respect of the 1st petitioner. Further, there is no specific overt act against the petitioners 2 and 3, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 2 and 3, subject to certain conditions. 7.Accordingly, the petitioners 2 and 3 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 Additional Mahila Court, Karur, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which, the order copy was made ready and on further conditions that:

[a]the petitioners 2 and 3 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 2 and 3 shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation; [c]the petitioners 2 and 3 shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. 4/7

[d]the petitioners 2 and 3 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 2 and 3 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 2 and 3 are 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 absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

(S S Y J) 20.01.2026 msrm 5/7

To 1.The learned Additional Mahila Court, Karur.

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Karur.

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

6/7

S.SRIMATHY,J msrm

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.841 of 2026 20.01.2026 7/7