Shanthi v. State Rep.By Its, Deputy Superintendent of Police,

O R D E R The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 118(1) of BNSS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in Crime No.76 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the daughter-in-law of the petitioners herein and the petitioners' son, namely, Jegannathan ill-treated her and they got separated since 2025. Since then, Jegannathan is living with his parents. In the meantime, the defacto complainant had taken a loan for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and handed over the same to her husband and since the creditor is harassing her for repayment of the loan, the defacto complainant came to the petitioners' house on 19.03.2026 along with her two children. At that time, her husband was not available in the house and the petitioners herein, who are in-laws of the defacto complainant, verbally abused the defacto complainant by referring her community and threatened her. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel appearing appearing for the petitioners submitted that though there is a prima facie material in Crime No.76 of 2026, this is third complaint in respect of same occurrence. In the previous complaints, no such Page3 of 5 allegation has been made. Only to rope the petitioners into this Section, a false complaint has been made.

¶4Though such a submission was made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, there is a prima facie material of humiliating the defacto complainant by referring her community name in the public view. Therefore, bar under Section 18 of SC/ST Act would come into play. That being the case, this anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners is not maintainable.

¶5Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶6However, the petitioners are given liberty to surrender before the Special Court for SC/ST Act cases and if the petitioners file an application for bail, the learned Special Judge, subject to the due compliance of Section 15-A

(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is directed to consider and dispose of the application on the same day according to its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in the present petition.

21.07.2026 ssb Page4 of 5 To

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Harur Sub Division, Dharmapuri District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kottapatti Police Station, Dharmapuri District, Tamil Nadu-636 906.

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o17237oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. ssb CRLoOPoNo.o17237oofo2026

21.07.2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.07.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL.O.P.No.17237 of 2026 1.Shanthi 2.Sakthi ..Petitioners Vs 1.State rep.by its, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Harur Sub Division, Dharmapuri District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Kottapatti Police Station, Dharmapuri District, Tamil Nadu-636 906. 3.Kanimozhi ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 582 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.76 of 2026 on the file of the second respondent Police. For Petitioner(s): Mr.E.V.Chandru @ E.Chandra Sekaran for Mr.J.Ravikumar For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Criminal side) Page2 of 5