J.Vivek v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 23.02.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY 1.J.Vivek 2.P.John Paranjothi 3.Helaon Revathy 4.Roobi Arulamani .... Petitioners Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.By, the Inspector of Police, Usulampatti All Women Police Station, Madurai District.
(Crime No.20 of 2025) 2.Vijayalakshmi ... Respondents (R2 is suo motu impleaded by this Court, vide order, dated 08.10.2025, in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16863 of 2025) For Petitioners : No appearance For R-1 : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R-2 : Mr.SMP.Amalan 1/8
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.20 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 420, 406, 506(i) of IPC r/w. Section 4 of TNPHW Act, in Crime No.20 of 2025, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner suppressed his first marriage and married the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the second petitioner, who is the father of the first petitioner, abused the defacto complainant, and petitioners 1 to 4 stated that there was a girl from abroad for the first petitioner to marry. Hence, the case.
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. Hence, he prays for grant of 2/8
anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent Police submitted that the first petitioner suppressed his earlier marriage and married the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the second petitioner, father of the first petitioner, abused the defacto complainant. Therefore, he opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. It is a case of promise to marry. The petitioners are relatives of the defacto complainant. The first petitioner has a subsisting marriage with another lady. The petitioner stated to the defacto complainant that his first marriage had ended amicably and proposed marriage. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court directed the parties to appear before the counsellor. The counsellor has thoroughly taken the rival submissions and narrated the status of both the parties. This Court further directed the first petitioner to secure a house and live with the defacto complainant for one month. The interim order was not complied with. Hence, suo motu contempt proceedings are initiated for violation of the interim order.
3/8
6. As far as the bail application is concerned, the first petitioner committed cheating by not disclosing his first marriage. The divorce petition was filed only after the second marriage, which was also not registered. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the first petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed insofar as the first petitioner is concerned.
7. As far as petitioners 2 to 4 are concerned, considering the fact that they are relatives of the defacto complainant, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
8. Accordingly, this Petition is allowed and the petitioners 2 to 4 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti, on condition that the petitioners 2 to 4 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 4/8
or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that: (a) the petitioners 2 to 4 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 2 to 4 shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation; (c) the petitioners 2 to 4 shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (d) the petitioners 2 to 4 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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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]; and;
5/8
(f) if the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS 2023.
9. This Court is recording the attitude of the first petitioner. The first petitioner deliberately dragged on the case to avoid any orders to be passed in the case. In fact, the case was posted for several hearings. The first petitioner intended to take the case from the Board of the Court. Today, the counsel for the petitioner also deliberately absented and the case was left for non-appearance. This Court had referred the case for medically assisted counselling and the report has been received. Therefore, this Court proceeded to pass orders. The first petitioner cannot claim violation of the natural justice, since several opportunities were granted to him.
(S S Y J) 23.02.2026 jbr 6/8
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti.
2. The Inspector of Police, Usulampatti All Women Police Station, Madurai District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
7/8
S.SRIMATHY,J.
jbr
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.16863 of 2025 Date : 23.02.2026 8/8