M.Balaji v. The Sub-Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 189(2), 85, 296(b), 351(2) of BNS and 4 of TNPHW Act in Crime No.30 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that this is a case of matrimonial discord between the petitioner and de facto complainant. The marriage between the petitioner and the de facto complainant was solemnised on 14.07.2025. The petitioner along with his family members assaulted the de facto complainant and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case of dowry harassment and that the FIR was registered in the year 2025. He further submitted that the other accused, who are the family members of the petitioners were already released on bail. The specific submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner Page3 of 6 is that when the petitioner questioned the de facto complainant's previous marriage, which was not at all dissolved by the Court and enraged by that questioning, the de facto complainant has given a false complaint. Therefore, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that since the petitioner was absconding, the investigation could not be completed. Hence, she opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶5The learned counsel for the Intervenor vehemently objected the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that within a period of one week from the date of marriage, the petitioner and his other family members brutally assaulted the de facto complainant, demanded dowry and also driven her out of the matrimonial home. He further submitted that if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, it would be endangering the life of the de facto complainant. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶6I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

¶7Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that the Page4 of 6 FIR was registered in the month of September 2025 and that other accused who are relatives of this petitioner have already been enlarged on bail. Since the nature of allegation is dowry harassment and at this length of time, no custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions.

¶8Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Additional Mahila Judge, Coimbatore, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:

(a) If the petitioner fails 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; Page5 of 6

(c) The petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m. and 05.30 p.m, until further orders and relaxation petition shall not be entertained within a period of 30 days;

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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 petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 26-03-2026 SHL To:

¶1The Additional Mahila Judge, Coimbatore

¶2The Sub-Inspector of Police, All women police station, Periyanaickempalayam, Coimbatore District.

¶3The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras CRLoOPoNo.o6522oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPANoJ. SHL CRLoOPoNo.o6522oofo2026 and CRLoMPoNo.o5649oofo2026 26-03-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No.6522 of 2026 and CRL MP No.5649 of 2026 CRL OP No.6522 of 2026 M.Balaji ..Petitioner Vs The Sub-Inspector of Police, All women police station, Periyanaickempalayam, Coimbatore District. Crime.No.30/2025 ..Respondentt CRL MP No.5649 of 2026 Saideepa ..Petitioner Vs 1. Balaji 2. The State represented by Inspector of Police, AWPS, Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station, Coimbatore City. ..Respondents Prayer in Crl.OP.No.6522 of 2026: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the Petitioner /Accused - A1 on Anticipatory Bail in the event of arrest in Crime. No. 30/2025 on the file of the Respondent/Complainant. Page2 of 6 Prayer in Crl.MP.No.5649 of 2026: Petition filed under Section 528 of BNS to permit the petitioners to intervene in Crl.OP.No.6522 of 2026. For Petitioner: Ms.S.Thankira For Respondent: For Intervenor: Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Mr.M.Dinesh