Surendranpraveen v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16.10.2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD). No.15016 of 2025 Surendranpraveen ... Petitioner/ Accused No.1 Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram District.

(Crime No.5 of 2025) 2.Iswarya ... Respondents (R2 is impleaded as per order of this Court dated 18.09.2025 in Crl.M.P.(MD).No.12641 of 2025) For Petitioner: Mr.P.Muthusamy For Respondent: Mrs.M.Aasha, Government Advocate(Crl. Side) For Intervener: Mrs.S.Mahalakshmi 1/6

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.5 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A1, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 316(2) and 82(1) of BNS, in Crime No.5 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the defacto complainant were loved each other and married. After that, the defacto complainant and the petitioner were living at Thiruppur. Out of their wedlock, a male child was born. Due to the defacto complainant's illness, 2/6

he returned to her native place. At that time, the petitioner went to job at Kalaiyarkovil and he was having a friendship with one vinitha and her parents were threatened to the petitioner. Therefore, he went to Tiruppur and working as labout. But, he has not sent money to the defacto complainant and he was lived with some other women. Hence, a case was registered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. 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.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the intervener submitted that the accused earlier 3/6

married young girl when he was below 18 years of age. He murdered the said girl and is facing a criminal case. Subsequently, he married the present defacto complainant. While the marriage was still subsisting, he married the second accused.

She further submitted that his antecedents and conduct towards women is not proper.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submitted that the petitioner is facing criminal case. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioner is facing criminal case and his antecedents and conduct towards the women is not proper, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4/6

7. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

The interim order already granted by this Court is vacated.

(S S Y J) 16.10.2025 vsg To 1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram District.

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

5/6

S.SRIMATHY,J.

Vsg

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.15016 of 2025 16.10.2025 6/6