Kumaresan Ganesan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 05/08/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAI 1.Kumaresan @ Ganesan, S/o.Karuthan 2.Thangaponnu, W/o.Kumaresan @ Ganesan 3.Chandrakumar, S/o.Kumaresan @ Ganesan ... Petitioners/A2 to A4 Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by, the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.

(Crime No.12 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.S.Poornachandran, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.Prakash, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/6

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.12 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A2 to A4, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC r/w. Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.12 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the 1st accused and the de-facto complainant are husband and wife. At the time of marriage, the de-facto complainant was adorned with 20 sovereigns of gold jewellery, and 5 sovereigns were gifted to the 1st accused. Apart from that, a two-wheeler, along with sridhana articles, was given as a gift by her parents. In these circumstances, the petitioners, who are the family members of the 1st accused, demanded further dowry from the de-facto complainant, thereby threatening her. Hence, the present case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the 2/6

petitioners are the in-laws of the de-facto complainant. He submitted that the defacto complainant had an illegal relationship with one Mani Selvam, and when this was questioned by her husband/A1, she deserted him and returned to her parental home. Thereafter, the 1st accused filed H.M.O.P.No.94 of 2024 before the Principal Sub Court, Pudukottai, seeking divorce. In order to wreak vengeance, the de-facto complainant lodged the present complaint against the petitioners. He submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further 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 (Crl. side) submitted that there are totally four accused persons in this case and the petitioners have been arrayed as A2 to A4. The accused persons demanded further dowry from the de-facto complainant. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence, and also taking note of the fact that the issue pertains to a matrimonial dispute, and that the de-facto complainant's husband has already filed 3/6

a petition seeking divorce, and that the petitioners are merely in-laws of the de-facto complainant, this court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in this case. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

6. 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 Mahila Judge, Pudukottai 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 the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Mahila Judge, Pudukottai, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition 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 Mahila Judge, Pudukottai.

Pudukottai;

(c) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police weekly twice i.e. on every Monday and Thursday at 10.30 a.m. 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/- 05/08/2025 / TRUE COPY / /08/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (CS-I/II/III/IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

5/6

mkn TO 1.The Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukottai.

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.12995 of 2025 Date :05/08/2025 PR/25.08.2025 6P/4C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6