Sridhar v. State Rep.By, the Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 296 (b), 115 (2), 85, 351 (2) of BNS, in Crime No.230 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the husband of the defacto-complainant. It is alleged that the petitioner demanded the defacto-Page2 of 4 complainant hand over the property deeds, which were in possession of their son. When the defacto-complainant refused to do so, the petitioner abused her in filthy language, assaulted her by slapping her ears and threatened her with dire consequences. Consequently, the defacto-complainant sustained internal injuries and received treatment at the Vaniyambadi Government Hospital. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and is willing to cooperate with the investigation. Furthermore, he submitted that this is merely a matrimonial discord and that false case was filed solely to grab the property. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned counsel for the intervenor strongly opposed this application on the ground that the petitioner has three previous cases. He contended that if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, it would pose a threat to the defacto-complainant's life and that she had narrowly escaped from the petitioner on a previous occasion .

5.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent Police reiterated the intervenor's contention and submitted that Page3 of 4 three previous cases have been registered against the petitioner. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this application.

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

7.From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), it is pellucid that the petitioner has misused the liberty which had been granted by this Court in earlier point of time. Hence, considering the seriousness of the allegations, and as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the intervenor, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail that would create fear psychosis in the mind of the defacto-complainant. Consequently, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail and this Criminal Original Petition is accordingly dismissed. 27-07-2026 ep To

1.The Inspector of Police, Vaniyambadi Town Police Station, Vaniyambadi, Tirupathur District.

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o16966oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. EP CRLoOPoNo.o16966oofo2026 27-07-2026 (2/2) Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Sridhar ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Vaniyambadi Town Police Station, Vaniyambadi, Tirupathur District. Cr.No.230 of 2026. ..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS Act, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.230 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vaniyambadi Town Police Station, Vaniyambadi, Tirupathur District. For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.Vinodhkumar For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Criminal side) Mr.N.Baskaran for Intervenor