Harisankar v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Awps-Marthandam

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 15.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 960 of 2026 1.Harisankar 2.Subbulakshmi 3.Ashok Pandian 4.Vishwa Ganesh 5.Sri Jeyanthy ... Petitioners Vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Marthandam, Kanniyakumari District.

(Crime No.1 of 2026) 2.B.Utharasundheri

...Respondents/Complainant

(R2 is suo motu impleaded as per order of this court dated 21.01.2026.) For Petitioners : Mr.M.Maruthupandian Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy Government Advocate (Crl. side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 1 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

1/6

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 316(2) of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in Crime No.1 of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the wife of the 1st petitioner and the other petitioners are her in-laws. The 1st petitioner along with other petitioners harassed the defacto complainant demanding more dowry. 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. It is matrimonial dispute between the parties. Hence, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, where the matter was amicably settled between the parties. 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. It is matrimonial dispute between the parties. The 2/6

allegation is that the petitioner along with the in-laws harassed the defacto complainant demanding more dowry. The first petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners. Investigating is still pending. There is no previous case against the petitioners.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners, considering the relationship between the parties, there is matrimonial dispute between the parties, after filing this petitioner, the matter has been settled between the parties amicably 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: [a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to 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 Judicial Magistrate No.I, Padmanabhapuram and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police 3/6

at 10.30 p.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 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 21 B.N.S.

(P D B J) 15.04.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Padmanabhapuram. 4/6

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Marthandam, Kanniyakumari District.

(Crime No.1 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. 960 of 2026 Date : 15.04.2026 6/6