← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/12373/2026allowed

Santhiya v. The Tamilnadu State Rep.By

2026-07-01Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar8 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 01/07/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Santhiya, ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12373/2026 Gopiprasanth ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12395/2026

1. Rajamani,

2. Kaviakannan,

3. Sathish Alias Sathish Kumar,

4. Vignesh,

5. Ponnusamy, ... Petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12485/2026 Vs The Tamilnadu State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Lalgudi, Trichy District (Cr.No.25 of 2025).

... Respondent in all Petitions 1/8

COMMON PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.25 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

(In all petitions) For Petitioner : M/s.M.Silambarasan, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.P.Vetrivel, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.N.Ananda Kumar COMMON ORDER The petitioner, in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12373 of 2026, is the seventh accused, the petitioner, in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12395 of 2026, is the first accused and the petitioners, in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12373 of 2026, are the accused Nos. 2 to 6 in Crime No.25 of 2025.

2. The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 498(A), 403, 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.25 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2/8

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that A1 is the husband of the defacto complainant and A2 to A6 are in-law, and A7 is the concubine of A1. It is further alleged that though the marriage had taken place in the year 2022, the jewels of the defacto complainant was illegally pledged by the first accused and subsequently, whenever she demand back the jewels, A1 harassed her physically as well as mentally. Further, she pleaded in the F.I.R that the complainant's family helped the accused under various occasions financially and also when the defacto complainant had become pregnant, the accused have not come forward to celebrate baby shower and therefore misunderstanding arose further in 2024 and she came to know A1 had kept various photographs of several women and used to exchange obscene photographs.

Therefore, she came to know the illicit relationship with A7 and accordingly, she also questioned the same. The petitioners also threatened and forced to commit suicide. However, she struggled her life and subsequently, forced to leave the matrimonial home. Now, she came to know the fact that the A1 having illicit relationship with A7. Now, they begot a child. Hence, she come forward with the complaint.

3/8

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are A1 and other accused and in the F.I.R, there is categorical statement made by the defacto complainant that within three months from the date of marriage, the defacto complainant had left the matrimonial home and the allegations are false and they are ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that it is a clear case of mental abuse and harassment to the victim and the first petitioner joining with A7 gone to the extent,begotten a child by illicit relationship and other accused supported to A1. Hence the accused are liable for the commission of acts.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police, submitted that the investigation is going on and several serious allegations were levelled against the husband in this case. A1 conferred illicit relationship with A7 and begotten a child. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4/8

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent.

8. Considering the gravity of the offence levelled against A1, who is the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12395 of 2026, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, Crl.O.P. (MD)No.12395 of 2026 is dismissed. Insofar as the other petitioners are concerned, viz., Accused Nos.2 to 7, the allegation is that they are supporting to A1 and hence, custodial interrogation of the petitioners/ accused is not necessary. Therefore, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.12373 and 12485 of 2026 are allowed and this Court grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.12373 and 12485 of 2026/A2 to A7, subject to certain conditions.

9. Accordingly, the the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.12373 and 12485 of 2026/A2 to A7 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi, on condition that the the petitioners in 5/8

Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.12373 and 12485 of 2026/A2 to A7 shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition: (a) If the petitioners fail to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity; (c) The petitioners shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the 6/8

Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e) If the petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. In the result, Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12395 of 2026 is dismissed and Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.12373 and 12485 of 2026 are allowed. 01.07.2026 LS TO

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi.

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Lalgudi, Trichy District 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

7/8

K. RAJASEKAR,J.

LS 01/07/2026 8/8