Karthikeyan v. The State Rep by Its the Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 194(3) of BNSS, 2023, in Crime No.47 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the deceased, who was the wife of the first petitioner (A1) died on 12.04.2026 under suspicious circumstances. The first petitioner and his parents (A2 and A3) were implicated in the case. During investigation, it was found that the deceased was a minor at the time of her marriage with the first petitioner, and therefore offences under the relevant provision of the POCSO Act and the Prohibition of Child marriage Act were incorporated. Hence the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court and they are willing to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. Page2 of 6

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the case of the prosecution and vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. She submitted that during the course of investigation, it was found that the deceased was a minor aged about 17 years at the time of marriage and, therefore, the provisions of the POCSO Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act were attracted. She further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and the role of the petitioners has to be thoroughly investigated. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the anticipatory bail petition.

¶5This Court has considered the submissions made on either side.

¶6This is a case of dowry death and that the unfortunate occurrence took place on 12.04.2026. the first petitioner has been arrayed as A1 and the deceased was his wife. It is seen that the deceased and the first petitioner were living together for about four years and a male child was born to them. Though the petitioners have been implicated on the ground that the deceased was a minor at the time of marriage, the RDO report does not indicate any dowry harassment, and the materials available at present show that the deceased allegedly committed suicide following a quarrel arising out of a misunderstanding between the spouses. Considering the above facts, the length of their marital life, and the fact that the petitioners have expressed their Page3 of 6 willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and the first petitioner is taking care of the 3 ½ years old child, and the petitioners 2 and 3 are only the 1st petitioner's parents, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions.

¶7Accordingly, 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 Judicial Magistrate, Thirukoilur, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a 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 petitioners fail 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 daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of fifteen [15] days Page4 of 6 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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 petitioners thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 21-07-2026 JRS To

¶1Judicial Magistrate, Thirukoilur,

2.The Inspector of Police, Rishivandiyam Police Station, Kallakurichi District. In Crime No.0047 of 2026

3.The Public Prosecutor, High court of Madras. Page5 of 6 CRLoOPoNo.o18731oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. JRS CRLoOPoNo.o18731oofo2026 21-07-2026 Page6oofo6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1.Karthikeyan S/o.Kannan, Residing at Schoold Street, Ariyanthakka, Rishivandiyam, Sankarapuram, Villupuram District. 2.Kannan S/o.Muniyan, Residing at Schoold Street, Ariyanthakka, Rishivandiyam, Sankarapuram, Villupuram District. 3.Sangeetha W/o.Kannan, All are Residing at Schoold Street, Ariyanthakka, Rishivandiyam, Sankarapuram, Villupuram District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep by its The Inspector of Police, Rishivandiyam Police Station, Kallakurichi District. In Crime No.0047 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.0047 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. Page1 of 6 For Petitioner(s): M/s.R.Raji For Respondent(s): Mrs. R.S.Indira, Govt.Advocate (crl.Side)