Rajathi v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Awps-Sattur
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL B.Rajathi
...Petitioner/Accused No.2
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station Sattur, Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No. 7 of 2026)
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioner :Mr.N.Mariappan 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.7 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/accused No.2, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the 1/7
offences punishable under Sections 69, 296(b) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023, 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 defacto complainant namely, Mariammal and the first accused were in love. But, the first accused refused to marry her. Hence, the defacto complainant filed a complaint in C.S.R.No.400 of 2025 and the respondent Police called the first accused for enquiry. The first appeared for enquiry before the respondent Police and the marriage was done in the nearby temple between him and the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the first accused did not live with the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent 2/7
person and she was falsely implicated in this case and she is no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that she is the mother of A1. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) fairly submits that the investigation is pending at the offences are grave in nature and the petitioner has no previous cases. However, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
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 petitioner and also considering the fact that the petitioner is the mother of A1 and 3/7
there is love affair between A1 and the defacto complainant and the main allegation against A1 only, 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 No.I, Sattur, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police once in a week ie., on Every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.
[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature.
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond 4/7
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 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) 5/7
25.03.2026 vsg To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sattur.
2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station Sattur, Virudhunagar District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
P. DHANABAL, J., vsg
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 4612 of 2026 Date : 25.03.2026 7/7