Rex, v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Awps-Kanyakumari

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 06.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Rex ...Petitioner/Accused -1 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13087 of 2026

1.Alex

2.Hellan @ Helan ... Petitioners/Accused -2 & 3 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13092 of 2026

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station Kanyakumari. (Crime No. 16 of 2026 ) ...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Muthiah Poosari Amalan

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. 16 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 294(b), 498(A) and 506(i) of IPC, in Crime No. 16 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that A1 is the husband of the defacto complainant. A2 and A3 are the in-laws of the defacto complainant. Though the marriage between A1 and the defacto complainant took place in the year 2015, A1 joined with his family members have harassed the defacto complainant. Further, A1 has maintained illegal relationship with another lady, namely, Riba Rose and continously neglected the defacto complainant. When the same was questioned by her, A1 threatened her and also the family members have not take any steps to prevent the husband's illegal activity, due to which the defacto complainant committed suicide. However, she was rescued. Further, A1 has taken her son. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the defacto complainant and A1 were living separately and the petitioners were falsely implicated in this case and they are no way connected in the above said incident. 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 A1 have illegal relationship with one Riba Rose and when the same was informed to the family members, A1 continuously harassed the defacto complainant, causing mental agony and criminally intimidated her. 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, and considering the facts that A1/husband harassed the defacto complainant and caused mental agony, when the illegal relationship between A1 and the said Riba Rose was questioned, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 13087 of 2026. Further, considering the rival submissions made on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners in Crl.O.P.

(MD) No.13092 of 2026, and considering the facts that A2 and A3 are the in-laws of the defacto complainant, the couple were living separately and major allegation is against A1, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13092 of 2026, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 13092 of 2026 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 Additional Mahila Court, Nagercoil, 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 Judicial Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13092 of 2026 shall report before the respondent police, daily at

10.30 a.m. for a period of three weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation. [c] the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13092 of 2026 shall cooperate with the investigation. [d] the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13092 of 2026 shall not commit any offences of similar nature. [e] the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13092 of 2026 shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [f] the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13092 of 2026 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 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13092 of 2026 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.

(MD) No.13092 of 2026 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 Additional Mahila Court, Nagercoil.

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station Kanyakumari.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. K.RAJASEKAR, J LS ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) Nos. 13087 & 13092 of 2026 Date : 06.07.2026