Vignesh P v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Awps-Rajapalayam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 27.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Vignesh
...Petitioner/Accused
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam All Women Police Station, Virudhunagar District (Crime No.43 of 2025)
...Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Uhayanataraj 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.43 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/6
The petitioner/A1, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 406 , 506(1) of IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act in Crime No.43 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was married to A1 and their marriage was solemnized on 13.06.2022 at that time 23 sovereigns of gold jewels were given to her and three sovereigns of jewels were given to A1. The further allegations is that the accused persons demanded more dowry and when the defacto complainant refused the accused persons threatened with dire consequences. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and a false case has been foisted against him. The petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged crime. He would further submit that 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 along with other accused demanded more dowry and harassed the 2/6
defacto complainant and also criminally intimidated her. He would further submit that the investigation is still pending. Hence, 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 also considering the nature of offences and also considering the fact there is a family dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant and also considering the fact no previous case is pending against the petitioner, 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 Additional Mahila Court, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four 3/6
weeks.
[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 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.
(P D B J) 27.04.2026 aav 4/6
To 1.The Additional Mahila Court, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District 2.The Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam All Women Police Station, Virudhunagar District 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
P. DHANABAL, J aav
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 8046 of 2026 Date : 27.04.2026 6/6