J.Vivek v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Awps-Usilampatti
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 30.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL J.Vivek
...Petitioner/A1
Vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Usilampatti All Women Police Station, Madurai.
(Crime No.20 of 2025) ...1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Vijayalakshmi ...2nd Respondent/ De-facto Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian, Advocate.
For R1 : Mr.M.Karunanithi, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : Mr.K.Jaya Mohan, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER : For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.20 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
1/7
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A1, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 420, 406, 506(i) of IPC read with Section 4 of TNPHW Act, in Crime No.20 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, who is the 1st accused in this case, suppressed the fact of his first marriage and married the de-facto complainant. Thereafter, the 2nd accused, who is the father of the 1st accused, allegedly abused the de-facto complainant in filthy language. All the other accused persons allegedly stated that there is a girl from abroad available for the 1st accused to marry. Hence, the present case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case, and that he is in no way connected with the aforesaid incident. He 2/7
has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that this is the second anticipatory bail application filed before this Court and that the co-accused in this case were already granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16863 of 2025 on 23.02.2026. Hence, he prays for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the issue pertains to a family dispute and that there are no previous cases registered against the petitioner. He would further submit that co-accused were already granted anticipatory bail by this Court. However, he opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and the nature of the offences charged against the petitioner, and considering the fact that there is a family dispute between the parties and that there are no 3/7
previous cases registered against the petitioner, and further considering that the co-accused were already granted anticipatory bail by this Court, this Court is 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, Usilampatti, Madurai District, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) to the credit of Crime No.20 of 2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti, Madurai District. Upon such deposit, the learned Magistrate shall accept the sureties furnished by the petitioner. Further, the de-facto complainant is at liberty to withdraw the said amount by filing an appropriate application before the trial Court; 4/7
[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police once in a week i.e. on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks;
[d] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature.
[e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[f] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [g] 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 petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court 5/7
himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. [h] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
(P D B J) 30.04.2026 mkn To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti, Madurai District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Usilampatti All Women Police Station, Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
P. DHANABAL, J.
mkn
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 8169 of 2026 Date : 30.04.2026 7/7