Judgment · High Court

CRL OP No. 13081 of 2026__________Page1 of 6IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 21-05-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVELCRL OP No. 13081 of 20261.A.Nagabooshanam2.A Jaanakiraman3.P Dinesh..Petitioner(s)/AccusedVsThe State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Sub Inspector of PoliceAll Women Police Station, St.Thomas Mount, Chengalpattu District. (Crime No.8 of 2026)..Respondent(s)/ComplainantPRAYER :- The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent Police in Crime No. 8 of 2026 on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner(s):Mr.Tamil Thendral ArasuFor Respondent(s):Mr.S.BalajiGovernment Advocate (Criminal side)ORDERThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 on 13.05.2026, praying to grant an order of pre-arrest bail.

The petitioners / Accused, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and Sections 74, 85, 119 (2), 329 (4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No.8 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 13081 of 2026__________Page2 of 63. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the daughter-in-law of the first petitioner. It is alleged that from the date of marriage the petitioners demanded dowry, abused using filthy languages and threatened the defacto-complainant to quit her profession. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that there is a matrimonial dispute between the first petitioner’s son and the defacto-complainant and were living separately. It is submitted that H.M.O.P.No.1127 of 2026 is pending before Family Court, Chennai. He would further submit that no previous case is pending against the petitioners. Therefore, he prayed to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners considering the nature of the allegations involving dowry harassment. He further submitted that there is no previous case pending against the petitioners.

Heard on both sides. This Court has perused the records. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 13081 of 2026__________Page3 of 67. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence alleged to have committed by the petitioners, and also considering the fact that no previous case is pending against the petitioners, this court is inclined to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions. (i)The petitioners shall be released on bail in the event of arrest or in the event of surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) along with two sureties for a like sum of Rs.25,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur; (ii)The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the Application for Suretyship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur shall obtain a copy of any one of their identity proofs to ensure their identity; (iii)The petitioners shall not enter into the defacto-complainant’s house or her work place; (iv)The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by police as and when required; https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No.