V.Rajkumar v. The State Rep By, the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Section 85 of BNS – 2023 (Corresponding Provision 498(A) of IPC – 1860), in Crime No.26 of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail. Page2 of 6

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the wife of the petitioner. The petitioner allegedly maintained an illicit relationship with another woman despite objections from the defacto complainant. Earlier, upon a complaint the petitioner was enquired into and gave an undertaking not to continue the relationship. However, he allegedly violated the undertaking, continued the relationship, and subjected the complainant to physical and mental harassment. Hence the case.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the alleged girl is an office colleague and look like a sister. Eventhough the complainant suspects their relationship and torture the petitioner without any material. The complainant never allow the petitioner to do the job, did not accept the explanation given by the petitioner. The petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the dispute is between husband and wife and that the petitioner is allegedly maintaining an illicit relationship with another woman. However, except for the said allegation, no other serious allegation is made against the petitioner. Hence, he Page3 of 6 opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶5Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, intervenor and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent.

¶6I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.

¶7From the submissions on either side, it appears that the principal allegation against the petitioner is that he maintained a relationship with another woman. Apart from the said allegation, no serious accusation is made against him. Considering that the dispute is essentially matrimonial in nature between husband and wife, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶8Accordingly, the petitioner is 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 is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi, Tirupathur District, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Page4 of 6 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;

(c) The petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four 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 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. 17-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order AH Page5 of 6 To

1.The Inspector of Police, AWPS – Vaniyambadi Police Station, Thirupathur District.

2.The Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi, Tirupathur District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

CRLoOPoNo.o15267oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. AH CRLoOPoNo.o15267oofo2026 17-06-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN V.Rajkumar S/o Venu, No.1062/27, First New Street, Conamedu, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Tirupathur, Tamil Nadu ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police AWPS Vaniyambadi Police Station, Tirupathur. Crime No.26 of 2026. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.26 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, AWPS Vaniyambadi Police Station, Tirupathur. For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Dinesh For Respondent(s): MR.N.PALANIVEL, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE)