Mahesh Perumal v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Radhapuram
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 21/04/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Mahesh Perumal ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Radhapuram Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
Crime No. 409 of 2025. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 409 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police.
For Petitioner : Muthuram R, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the 1/6
respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 194(3) of BNSS (U/s 174(3) of Cr.P.C.,) @ Section 108 of BNSS, 2023 (U/s 306 of IPC), in Crime No.409 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the mother and the petitioner is the husband of the deceased. The marriage took place between the petitioner and the deceased in the year 2021 and they have blessed with two children. For the past 1 year, the petitioner suspected the fidelity of the deceased, caused cruelty upon her. Due to which, on 31.08.2025, the deceased attempted to commit suicide by consuming poison. Immediately, she was taken to the nearby private hospital, and thereafter, she was shifted to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital for further treatment, where she died on 01.09.2025. Hence, this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has no way connected in the above said incident. He would further 2/6
submit that the petitioner immediately taken the deceased to a nearby private hospital after she consuming poison and from the date of marriage, there is no allegations of harassment or cruelty was made against the petitioner and even both the children are with the petitioner and he is taking care of them and no previous case is pending against the petitioner. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioner and the deceased are the husband and wife. The petitioner made harassment and cruelty upon the deceased by suspecting the fidelity of the deceased. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He would further submit that the investigation was completed and charge sheet was not yet filed and the petitioner has no previous case.
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 there is a dispute between the petitioner and the deceased, who are the husband and wife and the 3/6
FIR was registered on 01.09.2025, by this time, the material part of the investigation might have been completed 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 Judicial Magistrate Court, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, daily 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 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 4/6
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.
21.04.2026 dss To 1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Radhapuram Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
P. DHANABAL,J dss
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.6032 of 2026 Date : 21/04/2026 6/6