Vaithegi v. The State Rep by the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 296 and 351(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.10 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail. Page2 of 6

2.The prosecution alleges that A1, despite being already married, falsely projected himself as an unmarried man on a matrimonial website and induced the defacto complainant, a widow, to marry him. By making a false promise of marriage and concealing his marital status, he borrowed ₹5.30 lakhs, 5 sovereigns of gold jewellery, and later an additional ₹10 lakhs in cash from the defacto complainant for alleged business needs. He also sexually exploited her under the false promise of marriage. Subsequently, the defacto complainant discovered that A1 was already married and living with his wife, had furnished false address details using different Aadhaar cards, and had demanded Rs.1 Crore to proceed with the marriage. Alleging that A1 habitually cheats and exploits women through false promises of marriage, the defacto complainant lodged the present complaint against the petitioners.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegation is that the first accused received a sum of ₹10 lakhs and seventeen sovereigns of gold jewellery from the defacto complainant under a false promise of marriage. He would further submit that, even according to the allegations made in the FIR, there are no serious allegations against these petitioners, and the defacto complainant only came to know about the existence of the petitioners when she visited A1's residence. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Page3 of 6

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that although the petitioners were not arrayed as accused in the earlier FIR registered in the year 2021, the present case contains specific overt acts against them. By referring to the materials collected, including contact records, he submitted that these petitioners are also actively involved in the offence. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶5I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

¶6In view of the facts and circumstances, and given the limited overt acts attributed to the petitioners, who are the wife (A2) and the father-in-law (A3) of A1, this Court is of the firm view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions:

7.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a Page4 of 6 separate bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each, with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:

(a) If the petitioner(s) fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;

(c) the petitioners shall report before the respondent Police everyday at 10.30.a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner(s) in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner(s) released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e) If the petitioner(s) thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 14-07-2026 GBI Page5 of 6 To

1.The Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore.

2.The Inspector of Police AWPS East Police Station, Puliyakulam, Coimbatore.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o18377oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. GBI CRLoOPoNo.o18377oofo2026 14-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1. Vaithegi 2. Krishnan ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By The Inspector of Police AWPS East Police Station, Puliyakulam, Coimbatore. Crime No.10 of 2026. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to grant anticipatory Bail to the petitioners and order to enlarge them on bail in the event of arrest in Crime no.10/2026 by the Respondent Police. For Petitioner(s): Mr.J.Pradeep For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.Side)