S.Prasanth v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Awps-Samayanallur
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 10.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL S.Prasanth
...Petitioner/Accused
Vs
1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Samayanallur All Women Police Station Madurai District.
(Crime No. 40 of 2025) 2.B.Tharani (R2 is suo motu impleaded vide order dated 02.02.2026 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1929 of 2026)
...Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vivek Advocate.
For R1 : Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : Mr.K.Kubendran PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS 1/7
PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 40 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 406 of IPC in Crime No. 40 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are the husband and wife. The petitioner and his family members demanded additional dowry from the defacto complainant, due to which they are torturing and harassing the defacto complainant and they drove out to her parental house. On 07.09.2025 at about 6.00 p.m., the petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant and her uncle in public place with helmet. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is 2/7
no way connected in the above said incident. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prayed to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant would submit that the petitioner demanded additional dowry and caused cruelty to the defacto complainant. On 07.09.2025 at about 6.00 p.m., the petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant and her uncle in public place with helmet. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, a case has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 406 of IPC in Crime No. 40 of 2025. He further submits that due to matrimonial dispute, the occurrence happened and the petitioner has no previous case. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature and hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
3/7
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner and the relationship between the parties and considering the facts that there is a matrimonial dispute between the parties and no previous case is pending against the petitioner, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to 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, Vadipatti, Madurai, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation.
[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of 4/7
similar nature.
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[e] the petitioner 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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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) 10.04.2026 apd 5/7
To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Samayanallur All Women Police Station Madurai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
P. DHANABAL, J apd
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 1929 of 2026 Date : 10.04.2026 7/7