Rehirson v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 10.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Rehirson

...Petitioner/Accused

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Theni Police Station Theni.

(Crime No. 141 of 2025 )

...Respondent

For Petitioner : Mr.I.Pinaygash Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervenor : M/s.S.Meena PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 141 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

1/7

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 296(b), 351(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No. 141 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and the A1 are the husband and wife and the petitioner is the friend of A1. A1 cheated the defacto complainant for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and when the defacto complainant questioned the same, the petitioner along with other accused threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner was already granted interim anticipatory bail and so far, the petitioner is co-operating with the enquiry. Hence, he prayed to grant 2/7

Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the defacto complainant married A1 in front of the friends and hence, they are threatening the defacto complainant that they will release the marriage photos in social media and cheated Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence, she strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, a case has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 296(b), 351(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No. 141 of 2025. He further submits that the petitioner has no previous case. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature and hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and the 3/7

nature of offences charged against the petitioner, and the relationship between the parties and considering the facts that there is a matrimonial dispute between A1 and the defacto complainant and the petitioner was granted interim anticipatory bail and no previous case is pending against the petitioner, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation.

[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature.

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during 4/7

investigation or trial.

[e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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].

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

(P D B J) 10.04.2026 apd 5/7

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Theni.

2.The Inspector of Police, Theni Police Station Theni.

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

6/7

P. DHANABAL, J apd

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 16699 of 2025 Date : 10.04.2026 7/7