Aravind v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Awps-Thirumangalam

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 06.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN CRL OP(MD)No.4283 of 2026 Aravind ... Petitioner / Accused No.1

Versus

1.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam All Women Police Station, Madurai District.

(Crime No.22 of 2025) ... Respondent / Complainant 2.Santhiya ... Respondent / Defacto Complainant PRAYER :-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.22 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police or on his appearance.

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Balamurugan, Advocate For R1 :

Mr.P.Kottaichamy, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) 1/5

For R2 :

Mr.A.Sivasubramanian, Advocate ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police in Crime No.22 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 498A and 406 of IPC, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner married the defacto complainant on 01.06.2023, and out of the said wedlock, a male child was born. Subsequently, it is alleged that the petitioner demanded additional dowry and subjected the defacto complainant to cruelty and harassment. Owing to such harassment, the defacto complainant was driven out of the matrimonial home. Thereafter, she lodged a complaint before the respondent police, based on which a case was registered against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has filed H.M.O.P. No.165 of 2025 for restitution of conjugal rights before the learned Sub Court, Sivakasi, and the same is pending. It is further submitted that, due to matrimonial disputes, the present 2/5

complaint has been lodged with false allegations, and there is no truth in the same. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant would submit that there are serious allegations of dowry demand and continuous harassment. He would also submit that even during the course of mediation, which was referred by the Court, the petitioner allegedly assaulted the defacto complainant, and a CSR has been registered in this regard. Hence, he strongly objected to the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that there are prima facie materials against the petitioner regarding dowry demand and harassment. Further, it is stated that despite the matter being referred for mediation, the petitioner did not cooperate and allegedly threatened and assaulted the defacto complainant, thereby creating a threat to the witnesses. Hence, he strongly objected to the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 3/5

6. This Court heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

7. Considering the serious nature of allegations, including dowry harassment and subsequent conduct of the petitioner during mediation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 06.03.2026 pal To 1.The Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam All Women Police Station, Madurai District.

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

4/5

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN ,J.

pal

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.4283 of 2026 Date : 06.03.2026 5/5