Poovalai Ponnambalam v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Awps-Thirumayam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 10.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL 1.Poovalai Ponnambalam 2.Jegatheeswaran
...Petitioners/Accused
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, AWPS, Thirumayam Pudukottai District Pudukottai.
(Crime No. 5 of 2026 )
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Jeyamohan Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 5 of 2026 on the file of the respondent 1/7
police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 318(2), 89 & 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 5 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 and the defacto complainant have a love relationship. On the strength of the false marriage promise of A1, they have sexual relationship, due to which the defacto complainant became pregnant. A1 and other accused including the petitioners forcibly took the defacto complainant to hospital and performed DNC procedure and A1 forcibly removed the mangal sutra and abused her and criminally intimidated the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are no way connected in the above said incident. They have not 2/7
committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that since the petitioners/A4 and A5 are the brother and friend of A1, respectively, they have been arrayed as accused in this case and A2 and A3 were granted anticipatory bail by this Court. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, a case has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 318(2), 89 & 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 5 of 2026. He further submits that the petitioners have no previous case. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature and hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners, and considering the 3/7
facts that merely because A4 and A5 are the brother and friend of A1, respectively, they have been arrayed as accused and even as per the prosecution, there is no specific overt-act attributed as against the petitioners and apart from the allegation that the second petitioner, who is the driver of the vehicle, took the defacto complainant to hospital, there is no other allegation as against the petitioners and there is a delay of 25 days in registered FIR and already co-accused were granted anticipatory bail by this Court and also considering the fact that no previous case is pending against the petitioners, 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) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirumayam, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a 4/7
period of four weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the 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) 10.04.2026 apd 5/7
To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Tirumayam.
2.The Inspector of Police, AWPS, Thirumayam Pudukottai District Pudukottai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
P. DHANABAL, J apd
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 7167 of 2026 Date : 10.04.2026 7/7