Bhagavathy v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 23.02.2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD)No.16120 of 2025 1.Bhagavathy 2.Sivanu 3.Esakkiammal 4.Sangeetha ... Petitioners Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No.42 of 2025) ...1st Respondent/Complainant
2. Jamuna Rani ...2nd respondent/defacto complainant (R2 is impleaded as per order of this Court dated 31.10.2025 in Crl.OP(MD).No.16120 of 2025) For Petitioners : Mr.Prince Prem Kumar For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.N.Mohan 1/6
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.42 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
ORDER: The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 296(b), 406 of IPC, in Crime No.42 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that defacto complainant Jamunarani resides with her parents and got married with 1st accused on 28.08.2020. The accused started to harass the defacto complainant by demanding additional dowry. The 1st accused has filed a petition for divorce before the learned Family Court at Coimbatore and the same was taken on file in HMOP No. 1825/2022. While pendency of the above said proceedings, the defacto complainant has filed transfer petition before this Court. After considering the petition, the case has been transferred to the Family Court, Madurai where new number has been assigned as HMOP No.976/2024. Thereafter, the 1st accused failed to conduct the case which resulted in dismissed for default. Hence, the defacto complainant has lodged this present complaint. Hence, the apprehension of arrest. Hence, a case has been registered as against the petitioner.
2/6
3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence. He further submitted that the petitioners 3and 4 have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court dated 25.09.2025. Further, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners 1 and 2. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the offences committed by the petitioners are serious in nature.
5. Considering fact that the petitioners 3 and 4 have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 25.09.2026, and taking into account that the second petitioner is the father-in-law of the defacto complainant, while the first petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant against whom specific overt acts have been alleged, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed insofar as the first petitioner is concerned. However, in respect of the second petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail subject to certain conditions.
3/6
6.Accordingly, the 2nd petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, on condition that the petitioner 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 learned Additional Mahila Court, Magistrate Level, Srivilliputhur, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which, the order copy was made ready and on further conditions that:
[a] the 2nd petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity.
[b]the 2nd petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. [c] the 2nd petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [d] the 2nd petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[e]On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the 2nd petitioner in accordance with law as if the 4/6
conditions have been imposed and the 2nd petitioner is released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].
[f]If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.
23.02.2026 msrm TO
1. The Additional Mahila Court, Magistrate Level, Srivilliputhur, 2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
S.SRIMATHY,J msrm
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.16120 of 2025 Date : 23.02.2026 6/6