Sivakami v. State By, the Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

07.06.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 331(1), 296(b), 115(2), 103(1), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.36 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page2 of 4

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on 03.05.2026, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint stating that there was a dispute between the family of the defacto complainant and the accused persons regarding access to property and drilling of a borewell. It is alleged that during the course of the dispute, the accused persons threatened the defacto complainant and her family members. Subsequently, another quarrel took place near Ambal Jewelry Shop, during which one of the accused sustained head injuries. It is further alleged that the accused Vinoth damaged the two-wheeler of the defacto complainant and threatened her. Hence, the case was registered.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a woman and there is no specific overt act attributed against her. It is further submitted that she has been falsely implicated due to the family dispute between the parties. The learned counsel would contend that the allegations are omnibus in nature and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that according to the investigation, there is complicity on the part of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the investigation is still at the nascent stage and if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, the same would jeopardize the prosecution case. Page3 of 4

¶5I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

¶6This Court is of the view that though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a woman and there is no specific overt act against her, the investigation is still at the initial stage. At this stage, if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, the same may affect the course of investigation. Hence, it is too premature to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 23-06-2026 NSL To

¶1The Inspector of Police, Anakkavoor Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶2The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o15762oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. NSL CRLoOPoNo.o15762oofo2026 23-06-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Sivakami ..Petitioner Vs State by, Inspector of Police, Anakkavoor Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District. Crime No.36/2026. ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.36 of 2026 pending on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner: Mr.R.Thamarai Selvan For Respondent: Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu (Criminal Side)