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

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 1968 of 2026 1.Jerin 2.Selvi 3.Albert ... Petitioners Vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Marthandam, Kanniyakumari District.

(Crime No.7 of 2026) 2.Subaitha

...Respondent/Complainant

(R2 is suo motu impleaded as per the order dated 03.02.2026) For Petitioners : Mr.K.Rajeshwaran Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl. side) For Intervenor : Mr.G.Anto Prince Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 7 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 498(A), 406 of IPC and 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.7 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner and the defacto complainant are husband and wife. At the time of their marriage though the parents of the defacto complainant give streethanas, the petitioners and their family members 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. There is a matrimonial dispute 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. The petitioners are abused the defacto complainant 2/6

in filthy language and harrased her demanding more dowry. There is matrimonial dispute between the parties. Investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that petitioners harassed the defaco complainant demanding more dowry. They also abused and assaulted the defacto complainant. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail.

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

7. 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, there is no prevous 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, Kuzhithurai, Kanniyakumari and on further conditions that: 3/6

[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 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) 16.04.2026 TM 4/6

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, Kanniyakumari. 2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Marthandam, Kanniyakumari District.

(Crime No.7 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. 1968 of 2026 Date : 16.04.2026 6/6