S. Selin Raj v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 01.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL 1.S.Selin Raj 2.Krishna Kumari 3.Selvaraj

...Petitioners/Accused 1 to 3

Vs

1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Colachel, Kanyakumari.

(Crime No. 44 of 2025 ) 2.Thenmozhi

...Respondents

(R2 is suo motu impleaded vide order dated 17.12.2025 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23252 of 2025) For Petitioners : Mr.L.Jeen Felix Advocate.

For R-1 : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R-2 : Mr.Akhilesh Sudhakar 1/7

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 44 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 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 & 506(1) of IPC in Crime No. 44 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner and the defacto complainant are the husband and wife and the petitioners 2 and 3 are the in-laws of the defacto complainant. After marriage, the second petitioner took the jewels of the defacto complainant and when the same was questioned by her, there arose a dispute. Further the first petitioner took the mobile phone of the complainant and withdray money from Gpay and spent the same, when the same was questioned by her, a quarrel arose and the first petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.

2/7

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are no way connected in the above said incident. They have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioners 2 and 3 were already granted anticiptory bail and the first petitioner also granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court, while referring the matter to Mediation. Hence, he prayed to grant Anticipatory Bail to the first petitioner.

4. 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 498A, 406 & 506(1) of IPC in Crime No. 44 of 2025. He would further submit that a part of the jewels were handed over to the defacto complainant. 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 first petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the intervenor would reiterate the 3/7

submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner.

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

7. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and the nature of offences charged against the first petitioner, and considering the facts that there is a dispute between the parties and though this Court, earlier, referred the matter to Mediation, as far as anticipatory bail is concerned, Mediation is not required and also considering the facts that the petitioners 2 and 3 were already granted anticipatory bail and the first petitioner was also granted interim anticipatory bail and according to the prosecution, a part of the articles were handed over to the defacto complainant, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the first 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 4/7

sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari, and on further conditions that:

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

[d] the first petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] the first 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 first petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the first petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 5/7

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) 01.06.2026 apd To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari. 2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Colachel, Kanyakumari.

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

6/7

P. DHANABAL, J apd

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 23252 of 2025 Date : 01.06.2026 7/7