Dhineshkumar v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 10/07/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAI Dhineshkumar, S/o.Gnanasekar ... Petitioner/A1 Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Cantonment, Trichy City.

(Crime No.9 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.Lenin Kumar, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.Prakash, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS 1/4

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.9 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A1, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 316(1) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.9 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the de-facto complainant are husband and wife. At the time of marriage, the de-facto complainant's parents gifted her 100 sovereigns of gold jewellery. As the petitioner was working in Dubai, the de-facto complainant handed over her jewellery to the petitioner and his mother to be kept in a bank locker before she left to Dubai. After six years, when she returned to India, she requested the petitioner to return her jewellery. However, instead of doing so, the petitioner and his mother allegedly abused the de-facto complainant using filthy language. Despite this, she tolerated the harassment, considering the welfare of her children. At this juncture, the defacto complainant came to know that the petitioner was having an affair with another woman. When she questioned him about it, the petitioner allegedly abused 2/4

her using filthy language and also threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, the present case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant. Due to the same, the de-facto complainant has lodged the present false complaint against the petitioner. He further submitted that the de-facto complainant has made a false averment against the petitioner that her parents had gifted her 100 sovereigns of gold jewellery, which was allegedly taken by the petitioner. He contended that she does not possess any material evidence to substantiate this allegation. He further submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He, however, submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the issue pertains to dowry harassment, and that the petitioner was also involved in an illicit relationship with another woman. He further submitted that 100 sovereigns of gold jewellery belonging to the de-facto complainant are still in the possession of the accused. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 3/4

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the specific overt act against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 10/07/2025 / TRUE COPY / /08/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (CS-I/II/III/IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

mkn TO 1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Cantonment, Trichy City.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11662 of 2025 Date :10/07/2025 PR/31.07 .2025 4P/3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4