Muneeswaran @ Muneswaran v. The State Of Tamilnadu, Rep. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25/07/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAI 1.Muneeswaran @ Muneswaran, S/o.Muniyandi 2.Muniyandi @ Muniyandy, S/o.Muniyandi 3.Gomathi, W/o.Muniyandi ... Petitioners/A1 to A3 Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No.27 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.S.M.Anantha Murugan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.Prakash, Government Advocate 1/6

(Criminal Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.27 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 to A3, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 406 of IPC in Crime No.27 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the 1st petitioner and the de-facto complainant are husband and wife. At the time of their marriage, the de-facto complainant's parents gave 7 1⁄2 sovereigns of gold jewellery to the 1st petitioner as dowry. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner is said to have demanded additional dowry from the de-facto complainant and her parents. It is alleged that the petitioners pledged the gold jewellery given to the de-facto complainant by her parents at the time of her marriage and are unwilling to return the same. Hence, the present case

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue pertains to a 2/6

matrimonial dispute. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the de-facto complainant, and the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are in-laws of her. He submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and are in no way connected with the alleged occurrence as stated by the prosecution. He further submitted that the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are senior citizens. He, however, submitted that the petitioners are willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail for the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the issue pertains to a matrimonial dispute. There are totally three accused persons in this case. He submitted that the de-facto complainant has left her matrimonial home and is now living separately. He further submitted that there are no previous cases registered against the petitioners. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also taking note of the fact that the issue pertains to a matrimonial dispute, and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in this case, and that there are no previous cases registered against the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant 3/6

anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Additional Mahila Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District 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 respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Mahila Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District and on further conditions that:

(a) the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity; (b) the petitioners shall furnish their residential address and mobile number to the learned Additional Mahila Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District. In the event of any change in their residential address, the petitioners shall report the same to the learned Additional Mahila Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District;

(c) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. 4/6

until further orders;

(d) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(e) the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; (f) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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 themselves as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and; (g) if the accused/petitioners thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS, 2023.

sd/- 25/07/2025 / TRUE COPY / /2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

mkn TO 1.The Additional Mahila Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.

2. Do Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar District @ Srivilliputhur.

5/6

3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.

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

+1 CC to M/s.S.M.ANANTHA MURUGAN, Advocate ( SR-8048[I] dated 25/07/2025 )

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.12187 of 2025 Date :25/07/2025 HPS/21.08.2025 6P/6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6