Pandiyaraj v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 03.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 23726 of 2025 1.Pandiyaraj 2.Seetharaman ... Petitioners Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, AWPS, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No.35 of 2025)

...Respondents/Complainant

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Jagadeeshwaran Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl. side) For Intervenor : Ms.V.Vigneshwari PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 35 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 85, 316(2) of BNS and Sections 498(A) 1/6

and 406 of IPC, in Crime No.35 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant are husband and wife. There was matrimonial dispute between them. Due to which, the petitioners harassed the defacto complainant. Hence, they got separated and the defacto complainant lodged the present case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are in no way connected in the above said incident. They have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Originally the 1st petitioner met with an accident. His mother alone took care of him for a period of six months. At that time the defacto complainant separated from the 1st petitioner and live with her parents. Hence, dispute arose between them. Co-accused has been released on bail. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the offences are grave in nature. The petitioners harassed the defacto complainant. The petitioners have no previous cases. He vehemently opposed the grant of 2/6

anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that the house hold articles and other things are now with the petitioners. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.

7. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners, there is a matrimonial dispute between the parties, already some jewels were exchanged between the parties, the petitioners have no previous case, if any other articles are pending with the petitioners, it is for the defacto complainant to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law and also considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, 3/6

Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District, on condition that the petitioners 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police at 10.30 a.m., on every Saturday for a period of four weeks, thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

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

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

[e] the petitioners 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 petitioners 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]. 4/6

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

(P D B J) 03.06.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.

2.The Inspector of Police, AWPS, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No.35 of 2025) 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 23726 of 2025 Date : 03.06.2026 6/6