Nagalingam v. The Sub Inspector of Police, Tallakulam Awps

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 06.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

1.Nagalingam

2.Shobana

3.Naveenkumar ...Petitioners/Accused

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police, Thallakulam All Women Police Station, Madurai. (Crime No. 17 of 2026 ) ...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Ramesh

Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :-For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 17 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 296(b), 115(2) and 88 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No. 17 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner is the father-in-law of the defacto complainant and the second petitioner is the relative of the defacto complainant and the third petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant. From the beginning, the husband of the defacto complainant was harassing her and causing mental agony. The third petitioner demanded bike and accordingly, the same was given to him. On 26.03.2026, the third petitioner physically abused the defacto complainant, causing severe injury, due to which the defacto complainant was subjected to medical examination and thereafter, the husband was advised not to disturb the defacto complainant. Further, the third respondent refused to hand over the gold jewels to her. On 04.05.2026, she was forced to commit miscarriage by the family members. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the family members of the defacto complainant. The couple were living separately and the petitioners 1 and 2 have no role in the alleged occurrence and the averments made in the FIR are false. They are ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶4The learned Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner continuously harassed the defacto complainant and they forced the defacto complainant for miscarriage and caused mental cruelty. He further submitted that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature and hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶5Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the rival submissions made on either side and the nature of offences charged against the third petitioner, she was forced to miscarriage and also was continuously harassed by the third petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the third petitioner. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners, and considering the facts that the petitioners 1 and 2 are not in the place of occurrence since the couple were living separately and investigation is pending, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 1 and 2, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioners 1 and 2 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-II, Madurai, on condition that the petitioners 1 and 2 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 Judicial Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioners 1 and 2 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 the interrogation. [c] the petitioners 1 and 2 shall cooperate with the investigation. [d] the petitioners 1 and 2 shall not commit any offences of similar nature. [e] the petitioners 1 and 2 shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [f] the petitioners 1 and 2 shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [g] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners 1 and 2 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 1 and 2 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]. [h] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

06.07.2026 LS

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate-II, Madurai.

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Thallakulam All Women Police Station, Madurai.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. K.RAJASEKAR, J LS ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 12777 of 2026 Date : 06.07.2026