Ramesh Aravind v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Rajapalayam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 12.11.2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD)No.10418 of 2025
1. Ramesh Aravind
2. Moorthi
3. Vilavakani
4. Malathi
5. Vasanthi ... Petitioners Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Rajapalayam.
(Crime No.22 of 2025) ... Respondent For Petitioners : Mr.K.Anbazhagan For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : N.Moideen Basha PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.22 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
1/7
ORDER: The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 85, 115(2), 316(2), 351(2) of BNS and 4 of TNPHW Act and 4 of DP Act, in Crime No.22 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant was solemnized on 13.03.2022 at Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Kalyana Mandapam, Rajapalayam. At the instance and compulsion of the other petitioners, the 1st petitioner demanded 100 sovereigns of gold for the defacto complainant, 15 sovereigns of gold and a car for himself, Rs.30,00,000/- in cash, and Rs.2,00,00,000/- towards marriage expenses.
After the marriage, the 1st petitioner allegedly fell sick and at that stage, the defacto complainant came to know that he was suffering from Gilber Syndrome and it had been suppressed prior to the marriage. The 1st petitioner had transferred his properties in the name of his sister before the marriage. On 18.09.2022, the defacto complainant had taken a UPT test which showed a positive result. Thereafter, the defacto complainant and the petitioners went to the hospital, where the test result was declared negative. On account of the same, the 3rd petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant.
defacto complainant's parents came to the matrimonial home, took her with them, and while returning at about 2:45 PM, met with an accident in which both her mother and father succumbed to injuries. The defacto complainant's father was running a mill, and after his demise, the defacto complainant had given her share in the business to her sister and brother for which the 1st petitioner scolded her and threatened that he would cut her tongue. During her stay at MPK Puthupattu, the 1st petitioner forced the defacto complainant to have sexual intercourse. Earlier the doctors had advised both of them not to have intercourse due to the 1st petitioner's medical condition and the defacto complainant's life would be in danger if they had intercourse. On 26.08.
2023, when the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant travelled to Madurai to collect certain original certificates, the 1st petitioner allegedly beat the defacto complainant on the road and left her there. She then proceeded to the Thanthonri Malai Police Station along with her relatives and lodged a complaint. On 24.11.2024, at about 2:30 PM, the 1st petitioner, along with certain henchmen, allegedly came to the MPK Puthupattu house, handed over her stridhan articles, and threatened her to consent for divorce. Hence, the apprehension of arrest. Hence, a case has been registered as against the petitioners.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the 3/7
petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence. He seeks this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the offences committed by the petitioners are serious in nature.
5. This Court has already granted interim anticipatory and directed the petitioners to appear before the mediation to settled the issue. 6.Today, it is submitted that they have agreed for settlement and the same is executed in 100 rupees stamp paper, dated 04.11.2025. It is agreed between the parties that all the cases against both the parties will be withdrawn and the articles will be returned at the time of filing the divorce petition for mutual divorce.
7.Considering the settlement, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. The settlement agreement and the 100 rupees stamp paper wherein the settlement was executed shall form part 4/7
and parcel of this order.
8.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, on conditions that: [a]the petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required.
[b]the petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[c]the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [d]On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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 is 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].
[e]If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.
7.In case any petition for divorce petition is filed for mutual divorce, the Court concerned shall consider the same at the earliest and the cooling period 5/7
may be exempted.
12.11.2025 TMG TO
1. Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Srivilliputhur.
2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Rajapalayam.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
S.SRIMATHY,J TMG
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.10418 of 2025 Date : 12.11.2025 7/7