M Ganesh v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioner, who apprehends arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 318(2), 318(4) of BNS r/w Sec.4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 in Crime No.08 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail. Page1 of 6

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 03.09.2023 the betrothal function between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant was solemnized at J.K Mahal, Vadaperumbakkam. At that time, the de-facto complainant's family gave gold jewels weighing about 15 sovereigns to the petitioner as per customary practice. After the completion of the betrothal function, the petitioner demanded a car worth Rs.25,00,000/- and cash of Rs.10 lakhs from the de-facto complainant's family and the de-facto complainant and her parents allegedly agreed to that said demand. Thereafter, it is alleged that the petitioner and the de-facto complainant spoke over the phone, during which the petitioner body-shamed the de-facto complainant, particularly regarding the complexion and scars on her shoulder. The petitioner allegedly visited the de-facto complainant's house in the absence of her parents and had sexual relationship with her prior to the marriage. Thereafter, he is said to have mentally harassed and body-shamed her, causing severe distress, which led to the cancellation of the marriage. Subsequently, the de-facto complainant's parents requested the petitioner to return the jewels and a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- towards betrothal expenses and Rs.25,000/- which was given for the purpose of purchasing engagement dress. The petitioner returned only 9 sovereigns of gold and failed to return the remaining gold and money. Hence the case was registered.

3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case. He Page2 of 6 has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he is in no way connected with the alleged offence. He further submitted the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed anticipatory bail for the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there are no previous cases pending against the petitioner. He further submitted that, after completion of investigation, a charge sheet has been in C.C No.75 of 2026 before the Judicial Magistrate, Ennore. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner.

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

6.Considering the rival submissions on either side, the nature of offences, the fact that there are no previous cases pending against the petitioner, and that after completion of investigation, a charge sheet has been filed in C.C No.75 of 2026 before the Judicial Magistrate, Ennore and the same is pending for trial, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions.

¶7Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ennore, 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 Page3 of 6 like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: [a] the petitioner shall report before the trial Court/Judicial Magistrate, Ennore, on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m until further orders. [b] the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; [c] the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; [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 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 abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.2023. 14-05-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Page4 of 6 UMA Note:

¶1Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

¶2All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code. To

¶1The Judicial Magistrate, Ennore.

¶2The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ennore, Chennai.

¶3The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. Page5 of 6 CRLoOPoNo.o13015oofo2026 P.DHANABAL,oJ. UMA CRLoOPoNo.o13015oofo2026 14-05-2026 Page6oofo6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14-05-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL M Ganesh, S/o. Mani, N0.52/D, 11th Street, Koteeswaran Nagar, Pettai, Tirunelveli 627 004 ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ennore, Chennai (Crime No.08 of 2025) ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed to enlarge the Petitioner on Anticipatory bail in the event of arrest Connection With in C.C.No.75 of 2026 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur. For Petitioner(s): Mr. J. Jaya Bharath For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)