Aris v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Awps - Oomachikulam

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25.02.2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD)No.207 of 2026 Aris ... Petitioner Vs.

¶1The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Oomachikulam Madurai District. (Crime No.28 of 2025)

2.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By the Inspector of Police, Karupayoorani Police Station, Madurai District

3.S.Dharshika [R3 is suo motu impleaded as per the order of this court dated 07.01.2026 in Crl.O.P(MD)No:207/2026]

... Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muthaih Poosari Amalan For M/s. Tamil Law Firm For Respondents : Mr.S.S.Manoj

Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 & R2 Mr.R.Saravanakumar for R3 PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.28 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER: The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 296(b), 115(2), 351(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 67 of IT Act and Section 4 of TNPHW Act in Crime No.28 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant had a love affair with Aris for the past five years and she had married Aris in the presence of her husband's father Subramaniyan and her mother Mariyaselvam and her relative Punitha on 06.06.2024 and the same had been registered at Dindigul SRO. After the marriage, she had made a compromise with her parents and her father conducted marriage reception at Germanus Hotel. After 2 months from the date of marriage her husband demanded 50 sovereigns of Gold and Rs.10 lakhs/- as dowry and other accused also demanded dowry and her husband had beaten her and she had also given complaint before the Thallakulam All Women Police Station and he refused to live with her. On 22.01.2025, the accused person had published an abusive statement against the de-facto complainant in Instagram. Hence, the apprehension of arrest. Hence, a case has been registered as against the petitioner.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner has not committed any offence. He seeks this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the offences committed by the petitioner are serious in nature.

5.This Court directed the defacto complainant to take her laptop and Ph.D books from the petitioner's house. Today, it is reported that the laptop and Ph.D books were handed over to the defacto complainant and the same is recorded.

6.Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and since the petitioner has complied with the conditions imposed in the interim anticipatory bail regularly, the interim anticipatory bail already granted is made absolute and this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

7.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready and on further conditions that: [a]the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity. [b]the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required. [c]the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [d]the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e]On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner is released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. [f]If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

25.02.2026 TMG TO

¶1Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Oomachikulam Madurai District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Karupayoorani Police Station, Madurai District

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court, Madurai. S.SRIMATHY,J TMG ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.207 OF 2026 Date : 25.02.2026