Arulmary v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Sub-Inspector Of Police, Thevaram
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 12.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL 1.Arulmary 2.George
...Petitioners/Accused
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police, Thevaram Police Station, Theni.
(Crime No. 245 of 2026 )
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Rozario Sundar Raj Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.R.Bharath PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 245 of 2026 on the file of the 1/7
respondent 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, 296(b) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women (Amendment) Act, 2002 in Crime No. 245 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.05.2026 at about 19.30 p.m., when the defacto complainant demanded keys of the house from the petitioners, they threatened the defacto complainant and caused harassment. 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 committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prayed 2/7
to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Counsel for State of TN (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, 296(b) and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women (Amendment) Act, 2002 in Crime No. 245 of 2026. He would further submit 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. The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the defacto complainant is the daughter-in-law of the first petitioner. The husband of the defacto complainant died. Hence, the petitioners failed to hand over the keys of the building where the belongings of the defacto complainant are available. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail.
3/7
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners, and considering the relationship between the parties and there is a property dispute between the parties and already the petitioners appeared for enquiry and nobody was injured in this case 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 bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bodinaiyakanur, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that:
4/7
[b] the first petitioner shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for the interrogation and the second petitioner shall report before the respondent police, on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a 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]. 5/7
[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
(P D B J) 12.06.2026 apd To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Bodinaiyakanur.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Thevaram Police Station, Theni.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
P. DHANABAL, J apd
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 9549 of 2026 Date : 12.06.2026 7/7