High Court · 2025

CRL OP(MD).No.9438 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Reserved on : 26.06.2025Pronounced on : 15.07.2025PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAICRL OP(MD).No.9438 of 2025andCrl.M.P.(MD).No.7170 of 2025Inbaraj, S/o.Rajendran .. Petitioner/Accused No.1 VsThe State of Tamil Nadu,Rep. by the Inspector of Police,All Women Police Station, Melur, Madurai District. (Crime No.1 of 2025) .. Respondent/ComplainantFor Petitioner:Mr.Anandha Padmanabhan Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Sukumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Prakash Government Advocate (Criminal Side)For Intervener : Mr.S.Poornachandran 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.9438 of 2025 PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSSPRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.1 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.ORDER : The Court made the following order :-The petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police forthe offences punishable under Sections 85, 296(b), 316(2) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023and Section 4 of the TamilNadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act(TNPHW), 2002 in Crime No.1 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seekanticipatory bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the wife of thispetitioner. The marriage between this petitioner and the defacto complainant wassolemnized on 21.01.2024. At the time of marriage, 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments,household articles worth about Rs. 4,00,000/-, and cash amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-were given as dowry. After the marriage, the couple resided at the residence of thefourth accused, where 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments were forcibly taken from thedefacto complainant. Further, the petitioner demanded additional dowry of Rs.15,00,000/- and subjected the defacto complainant to physical and mental cruelty.2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.9438 of 2025The petitioner also abused her in filthy language and eventually drove her out fromthe matrimonial home. Hence, the case. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner isinnocent person he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution,and that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. He further submittedthat the allegations levelled in the FIR are false, baseless, and made with maliciousintent. After the marriage, the defacto complainant resided with this petitioner for abrief period of approximately two months. Subsequently, owing to a domesticdispute, she voluntarily left the matrimonial home, taking her jewels and householdarticles with her. Thereafter, on 22.04.2024, the defacto complainant lodged acomplaint against the petitioner, compelling them to approach this Court by filingCrl.O.P.(MD) No.9709 of 2024, seeking protection from harassment under the guiseof enquiry. This Court passed an order on 03.07.2024, pursuant to which the matterwas referred to the Social Welfare Officer for appropriate enquiry. 4. He also submitted that, subsequently, on 13.10.2024, another complaint wasfiled by the defacto complainant, based on which the present FIR came to beregistered. He further submitted that the petitioner along with his family members3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.9438 of 2025i.e., other accused persons were appeared for enquiry before the Social WelfareOfficer on 09.12.2024 and that during the said enquiry, the defacto complainant andher relatives attempted to assault the petitioner, following which a complaint wassubmitted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur. The Social Welfare Officeralso filed a report confirming that there was no instance of dowry harassment. In themeantime, on 05.02.2025, this petitioner received a notice under Section 35(3) of theBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by post from the respondent-police,summoning him to appear on 04.02.2025. Due to the delay in receipt of the saidnotice, this petitioner was unable to appear on the scheduled date. He furthersubmitted that the petitioner had already instituted H.M.O.P. No.123 of 2024 beforethe Family Court, Sivagangai, on 15.04.2024, seeking restitution of conjugal rights.The petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence asalleged by the prosecution. The petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions to beimposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioner.5. The learned Counsel appearing for the intervener would submit that thedefacto complainant was subjected to continuous physical, verbal, and mentalharassment at the hands of the petitioner and his family members, who treated herin an inhumane and oppressive manner, akin to slavery. He submitted that, under4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.9438 of 2025such circumstances, this petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from thedefacto complainant, citing the need to meet financial expenses for the constructionof a new house. He further submitted that this petitioner threatened that he wouldresume cohabitation with the defacto complainant only upon receipt of the saidamount. Thereafter, the petitioner demanded Rs.10,00,000/-, allegedly to expand theshop of the fourth accused, for which the defacto complainant refused to provide.Thereafter, this petitioner demanded Rs.10,00,000/- from the defacto-complainant toexpand his sister's business and renovate her shop. 6. He further submitted that on 23.03.2024, the petitioner and his familymembers were attempted to murder the defacto complainant, and on the followingday, i.e., 24.03.2024, they confined her in a room and physically assaulted her whiledemanding additional dowry. Fearing for her life and the safety of her unborn child,the defacto complainant sought help of neighbours, contacted her parents, andeventually left the matrimonial home. 7. He further submitted that the accused preferred Criminal Original Petitionin Crl.O.P.(MD).No.3665 of 2025 and sought for anticipatory bail. This courtconsidering the nature of offence, referred the case to mediation for amicable5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.9438 of 2025settlement. Both the parties appeared before the mediation, the accused personagreed before the mediation that he is holding the jewels as well as the educationalcertificate of the defacto-complainant. When the mediator asked him to produce thejewels he denied the said facts. Subsequently, the matter is referred back to court.This Court on seeing the attitude of the accused, granted anticipatory bail only tothe in-laws and dismissed the anticipatory bail petition with regard to the petitionerherein. If the anticipatory bail is granted to the present petitioner, he will causethreat to the defacto complainant and her family members. Accordingly, he prays todismiss this Criminal Original Petition. 8. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that thepetitioner and other accused demanded additional dowry to the tune ofRs.15,00,000/- and subjected the defacto complainant to both physical and mentalcruelty. He further submitted that the petitioner abused the defacto complainant infilthy language and ultimately drove her out of the matrimonial home. He furthersubmitted that if pre-arrest bail is granted to the petitioner, he will cause threat tothe defacto complainant and tamper with the evidence. Hence, he opposed to grantanticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.9438 of 20259. Heard both sides and carefully perused the material available on record. 10. Considering the allegations that the petitioner and other accuseddemanded additional dowry to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- and subjecting the defactocomplainant to both physical and mental cruelty, even after a direction to thepetitioner to hand over 17½ sovereigns of gold ornaments, the educationalcertificates, and certain wooden articles belonging to the defacto complainant, thepetitioner did not return the same to the defacto complainant and also taking note ofthe specific overtact allegedly committed by this petitioner, this Court is notinclined to grant anticipatory bail to this petitioner at this stage. 11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently,connected miscellaneous petition is closed. sd/- 15/07/2025 / TRUE COPY / /07/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.9438 of 2025GVNTO1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION,MELUR,MADURAI DISTRICT.2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.9438 of 2025 Date :15/07/2025NM/23.07.2025/ 8P/3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 8/8