Kalyani Sundaram v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Melapalayam

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 09.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Kalyani Sundaram

...Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Melapalayam Police Station Tirunelveli District (Crime No. 363 of 2025 )

...Respondent

For Petitioner : Mr.V.M.Jegadeesha Pandian For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottaichamy Government Advocate(Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 363 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

1/5

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 309(4) of BNS in Crime No. 363 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.12.2025 the defacto complainant had received a message through Grindr Application on his mobile and on the other end an identified unnamed accused person contacted the defacto complainant over video call and further asked the defacto complainant to come out near Tenkasi bus stand and as per the direction of the accused the defacto complainant had gone with him through two wheeler bearing Reg.No. TN 72 CH 8890 and they had gone near Government Engineering College near Rusi Hotel at that time the accused person had threatened the defacto complainant and taken obscene photographs and videos and taken four sovereigns of gold chain from the defacto complainant and also threatened him to give money. Further the accused persons had also taken the defacto complainant to the ATM and withdrawn Rs.48, 000/- from his card and they dropped the defacto 2/5

complainant near the SRM travels and handed over his cell phone and threatened him with dire consequences . Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and no previous case is pending against the petitioner. He would further submit that the alleged occurrence took place on 11.12.2025 but the complaint has been lodged by the defacto complainant only on 12.12.2025. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioner herein along with other accused had threatened the defacto complainant and also taken four sovereigns of gold chain and Rs.48,000/- from the defacto complainant. Investigation is pending and the properties have not been recovered.. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 3/5

6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the gravity of offence and also the fact that properties have not been recovered and the investigation is not yet completed, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Hence the petition stands dismissed.

(P D B J) 09.04.2026 aav To 1.The Inspector of Police, Melapalayam Police Station Tirunelveli District 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

P. DHANABAL, J aav

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.6675 of 2026 Date : 09.04.2026 5/5