Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- INSPECTOR POLICE, C KUMARAPPAN
Outcome
Bail granted
Accordingly, interim interstate anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners subject to the following conditions:
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Accordingly, interim interstate anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners subject to the following conditions: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 17317 of 2026__________Page4 of 6(i) The petitioners shall surrender before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, within seven (7) days from the date of…
- Para 77. The petition is ordered accordingly. 07-07-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoMFA https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 17317 of 2026__________Page5 of 6To1. The IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai2. The Inspector of Police, J7, Velachery Police Station, Velachery, Chennai.3. The Inspector of Police, Bachupally Police Station, Medchal-Malkajgiri District…
Judgment
CRL OP No. 17317 of 2026__________Page1 of 6IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 07-07-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPANCRL OP No. 17317 of 20261.T.G. Narayana SwamyS/o. Guruvaiah, No.43/17, Telugu Brahmin Street, Dhandeswaram, Velachery, Chennai.
G. KesavammalW/o. Guruvaiah, No.43/17, Telugu Brahmin Street, Dhandeswaram, Velachery, Chennai.
T GuruvaiahS/o. Toguru Chinna Guruvaiah, No.43/17, Telugu Brahmin Street, Dhandeswaram, Velachery, Chennai...Petitioner(s)Vs1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep.by, The Inspector of Police,J7, Velachery Police Station, Velachery, Chennai. 2. The State of Telangana Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Bachupally Police Station, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, State of TelanganaCr.No.426/2026...Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 17317 of 2026__________Page2 of 6PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS praying to enlarge petitioners on inter-state anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest by 2nd respondent Police in Cr.No.426/2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Bachupally Police Station, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, State of Telangana. For Petitioner(s):Mr.Badri .KFor Respondent(s):MR.N.PALANIVEL, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE)ORDERThe petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 85 of the BNS 2023 and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 , in Crime No.426 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner is the son of second and third petitioners. The first petitioner got married with the defacto complainant and the petitioners having the residence at Tamil Nadu. It is also the contention of the petitioners that the first petitioner had already filed an application seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground cruelty in HMOP No.3061 of 2025 before the III Additional Family Court, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 17317 of 2026__________Page3 of 63. It is also the contention of the petitioners that the complaint under Sections 85 of BNS and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act came to be registered against them on 06.05.2026. The marriage between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant took place in the year 2023. He further submitted that the the petitioners have no relatives to have the assistance at Telangana for approaching the jurisdictional Court. Hence they prayed to protect their liberty.
The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
From the materials placed before this Court, it is seen that the petitioners are residents of the State of Tamil Nadu, whereas the FIR has been registered in the State of Telangana. The petitioners had no friends and relatives so as to effectively assist them to get a legal remedy at Telangana for which they require reasonable time. Hence, this Court is of the view that it is appropriate to grant interstate anticipatory bail to the petitioners for a period of four weeks.
Operative part
Accordingly, interim interstate anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners subject to the following conditions: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 17317 of 2026__________Page4 of 6(i) The petitioners shall surrender before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order; (ii) On such surrender, they shall be enlarged on bail on condition that they shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate. (iii) Within four weeks of such surrender before the above said Magistrate, the petitioners shall seeks appropriate relief before any of the jurisdictional Courts in the State of Telangana.
The petition is ordered accordingly. 07-07-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoMFA https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 17317 of 2026__________Page5 of 6To1. The IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai2. The Inspector of Police, J7, Velachery Police Station, Velachery, Chennai.3. The Inspector of Police, Bachupally Police Station, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, State of Telangana4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 17317 of 2026__________Page6 of 6C.KUMARAPPAN, J.MFACRL OP No. 17317 of 202607-07-2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, interim interstate anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners subject to the following conditions:
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 85; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — ss. 3, 4.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.