High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P(MD).No.10922 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Reserved on : 20.08.2025 Pronounced on : 17 .09.2025PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAICrl.O.P(MD).No.10922 of 2025andCrl.M.P(MD)No.8229 of 20251.PalaniS/o.Esakkimuthu2.GurunathanS/o.Palani3.SeethalakshmiD/o.Palani4.YashodhaiD/o.Palani5.Pon RanganathanS/o.Pon Raman ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 7Vs.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. byThe Inspector of Police,AWPS Palayamkottai,Tirunelveli District.(Crime No.25 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.10922 of 2025PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, to enlarge the petitioners/Accused on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.25 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, AWPS Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. For Petitioners : Mr.N.Mohideen BashaFor Respondent : Mr.S.Prakash Government Advocate (Crl.side)For Intervenor : Mr.PM.VishnuvarthananORDERThe petitioners seek anticipatory bail for the alleged offences U/s.498(A), 323, 406 of IPC and 4 of TNPHW Act, in connection with the case registered in Crime No.25 of 2025 of respondent police.2. The brief case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant got married with Accused No.1 on 10.12.2021. At the time of marriage, 200 sovereigns for bride and 25 sovereigns for groom were given. After 10 days of marriage, Accused No.1 left for job in Texas, the jewels were kept in locker of Accused No.1 and Accused No.2. In the absence of Accused No.1, 2/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.10922 of 2025A2 to A6 harassed the defacto complainant by demanding more dowry even from the first Pongal in January 2022. Later, the defacto complainant went to Texas on 30.11.2022 and she gave birth of twins on 05.10.2024. In abroad, Accused No.1 harassed the defacto complainant and gave a false complaint against her that she physically assaulted him and the child, then Accused No.1 filed the divorce petition. Hence, the defacto complainant returned to India and lodged this complaint.3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the 1st petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.3 and the petitioners 2 to 5, who are in-laws of the defacto complainant, are arrayed as A4 to A7. The dispute is between the husband and wife, the petitioners are father, brother & sisters of Accused No.1 and the husband of one sister of Accused No.1. Accused No.2 dropped the defacto complainant at her parental home due to ill health. Then Accused No.2 took the defacto complainant for first pongal to the nuptial home and after 5 days stay, the defacto complainant returned back to her parental home. Accused No.2 also attended the defacto complainant's cousin brother's marriage on 26.02.2022. Before leaving for America, the defacto complainant met the first petitioner and got the locker key and took all her 3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.10922 of 2025jewels. The defacto complainant was diagnosed with epilepsy and seizures, which were suppressed by her parents and she was given treatment at America. After giving birth, the defacto complainant assaulted her husband and child, hence, her husband/Accused No.1 lodged a police complaint and protection petition in the United States. The police therein enquired and custody of children was given to Accused No.1. Accused No.1 also filed a divorce petition in the Texas Court and obtained order. The defacto complainant was ordered for psychological evaluation for 30 days. While being the facts so, the defacto complainant without knowledge of Accused No.1, returned to India on 25.03.2025 and filed this present complaint on false allegations. The petitioners appeared before the District Social Welfare Officer for enquiry. The first petitioner also gave a complaint narrating all these happenings before the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli on 16.04.2025 for fair enquiry, but no enquiry was conducted. The petitioners being in-laws of the defacto complainant have not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant. So, the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail.4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent submits that because of dowry harassment from the date of marriage 4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.10922 of 2025and it continued by the accused even at abroad, the defacto complainant left out two kids and came to India and lodged a police complaint. The investigation is pending at early stage. During investigation, it is revealed that 98 sovereigns of gold jewels were pledged by Accused No.4, the brother of Accused No.1. If the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, they will tamper with the evidence. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.5. The learned counsel for the intervenor has submitted that the intervenor was harassed mentally and physically by demanding more dowry, despite 200 sovereigns of gold jewels were given. The alleged divorce order obtained by Accused No.1 in the Court of Texas is an uncontested order, so it is not binding on the intervenor. Accused No.1 managed not to allow the intervenor to come down to India by removing the passport. So, the father of the defacto complainant filed the writ petition before the High Court of Madras and after obtaining the writ order, the intervenor was issued renewed passport and returned to India. Still, 98 sovereigns of gold jewels were in the custody of Accused No.3, which is seen from the WhatsApp chat. It is disclosed that Accused No.4, the brother of the husband, pledged 98 sovereigns of gold jewels. The husband of the defacto complainant is illegally proposed to marry 5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.10922 of 2025the daughter of Accused No.8, who is his maternal uncle. Hence, the learned counsel for the intervenor strongly objected to grant of anticipatory bail as there is possibility of tampering evidences by the petitioners.6. Heard and perused the available records. It is seen from the records that the defacto complainant is the wife of Accused No.1, who worked in Texas, US. The defacto complainant was taken to Texas on 30.11.2022, though their marriage was solemnized on 10.12.2021. The defacto complainant gave birth of twin female children. It is alleged that because of continuous dowry harassment, the intervenor returned to India, leaving her husband and kids. It is also alleged that the 2nd marriage of Accused No.1 is going to be held with the daughter of his maternal uncle/Accused No.8. 7. It is seen from the available records and on hearing both side, it is prima facie revealed that all jewels were not returned, 98 sovereigns of gold jewels were pledged by the 2nd petitioner/Accused No.4, who is the brother of Accused No.1. The 1st petitioner/Accused No.3 is the father of Accused No.1. On perusal of CCTV footage produced by the intervenor/defacto complainant, it is prima facie revealed that he has made visit to the defacto complainant's 6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.10922 of 2025house. It is alleged by the intervenor that still 98 sovereigns of gold jewels are with the 1st petitioner/Accused No.3 relying the WhatsApp chat of 1st petitioner/Accused No.3 and produced a copy of the same. So there are prima facie materials against the petitioners 1 and 2/A3 & A4 to attract the overtacts of the case and their interrogation is absolutely necessary. Therefore, considering the above circumstances and also considering the allegations/overtacts alleged against the petitioners 1 and 2/ A3 & A4, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to them at this stage. 8. In respect of the petitioners 3 to 5/A5 to 7 are concerned, they are only sisters in law and husband of one sister-in-law, that too they are said to be residing at Chennai and there are no specific overtact against them and no prima facie materials produced against them. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to them. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed in respect of the petitioners 1 and 2/A3 & A4. In so far as the petitioners 3 to 5/A5 to A7 are concerned, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to them with certain conditions. 7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.10922 of 202510. Accordingly, the petitioners 3 to 5/A5 to A7 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 No.1, Tirunelveli, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:(a) The sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Judicial Magistrate concerned may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity; and (b) The petitioners 3 to 5/A5 to A7 shall furnish their residential address and contact number to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli. If the petitioners change their residential address, they shall report the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli;(c) On release, the petitioners 3 to 5/A5 to A7 shall appear and sign before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders;8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.10922 of 2025(d)The petitioners 3 to 5/A5 to A7 shall not abscond either during investigation or trial and they shall cooperate for the investigation;(e) The petitioners 3 to 5/A5 to A7 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 3 to 5/A5 to A7 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and and if there is any violation of condition, the Investigation Officer is within his discretion to approach the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, concerned for cancellation of bail as per the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in P.K.Shaji/Vs/State of Kerala, (2005) AIR S.C.W.5560 and;(g) if the accused/petitioners 3 to 5 thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS, 2023. 11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is partly allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.17.09.2025NCC : Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoInternet : Yes / NoVSD9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.10922 of 2025To1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli2.The Inspector of Police, AWPS Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.10/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD).No.10922 of 2025P.VADAMALAI, J.VSDPre - Delivery Order made inCrl.O.P(MD).No.10922 of 2025andCrl.M.P(MD)No.8229 of 202517.09.202511/11