Sathish v. The State of Tamilnadu Rep by the Inspector of Police, Awps-Pudukkottai

ORDER The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 85, 296(b), 115(1), 351(2) and 316(2) of of BNS Act, 2023, and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.8 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The allegation against the petitioners is that the first petitioner is the husband and petitioners 2 & 3 are the in-laws of the defacto complainant. The marriage between A1 and the defacto complainant was solemnized on 29.08.2025, and from the date of marriage, the accused continuously demanded money, and A1 has also harassed her by physically torturing her and also assaulting her, and at the instigation of the petitioners 2 & 3, he demanded more dowry. Which resulted in continuous harassment. Unable to bear the same, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint against the accused.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that A1 already issued legal notice for divorce on 01.06.2026 and thereafter only this false complaint has been foisted against the petitioners. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶4THe learned the Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and, on instructions, submitted that it is a case of dowry demand and the accused brutally attacked the defacto complainant and also subjected her to physical and mental torture, and the investigation is at a preliminary stage. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶5I have gone through the records and also the connected materials.

¶6It is alleged that the first petitioner has brutally attacked the defacto complainant and also demanded money at the instigation by the other accused. Considering the nature of offence, the first petitioner is the main accused and he physically attacked the defacto complainant, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed as against the first petitioner is concerned.

¶7Insofar as the petitioners 2 & 3 are concerned, they are only in-laws of the defacto complainant, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 2 & 3, subject to certain conditions.

¶7Accordingly, the petitioners 2 & 3 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 made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District, on condition that the petitioners 2 & 3 shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition:

(a) If the petitioners 2 & 3 fails to surrender before the concerned 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 2 & 3 shall report before the respondent police daily 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 petitioners 2 & 3 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 2 & 3 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 2 & 3 thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

30.06.2026 dss K. RAJASEKAR,J DSS To

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District.

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12784 of 2026 Date : 30/06/2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 30/06/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR 1. Sathish 2. Chinnaiya 3. Amutha ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep By, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Pudukkottai District. (In Crime No.8 of 2026). ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.8 of 2026 on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioners : D.Rameshkumar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.P.Vetrivel, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)