Raj Kumar v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Awps - Periyakulam

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 29.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

1.Raj Kumar

2.Murugan

3.Karthigairani ...Petitioners/Accused

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station Periyakulam Theni. (Crime No. 18 of 2026 )

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioners : M/s.S.Ramesh Banu

Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :-For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 18 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 69 and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 18 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner and the defacto complainant loved each other and the second and third petitioners are the parents of the first petitioner. The first petitioner, by making false marriage promise, sexually assaulted the defacto complainant. However, on the instigation of his parents, the first petitioner married some other girl. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are no way connected in the above said incident. They have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, a case has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 69 and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 18 of 2026. He would further submit that the petitioners have no previous case. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature and hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

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

¶6Considering the rival submissions made on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners, and considering the facts that there is a love affair between the defacto complainant and the first petitioner and though there is no serious allegation as against the first petitioner, since the investigation is going on, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner. However, considering the facts that the petitioners 2 and 3 are only the parents of the first petitioner and main allegation is only against the first petitioner and also the second and third petitioners have no previous case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the second and third petitioners subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioners 2 and 3 are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioners 2 and 3 shall report before the respondent police, on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation. [c] the petitioners 2 and 3 shall not commit any offences of similar nature. [d] the petitioners 2 and 3 shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] the petitioners 2 and 3 shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners 2 and 3 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 2 and 3 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]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

(P D B J)

29.04.2026 apd To

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam.

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station Periyakulam, Theni.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRLeOP(MD).eNo.e8450eofe2026 oooooP.oDHANABAL,oJ oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooapd oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooORDER oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN oooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.o8450oofo2026 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooDateoo:o29.04.2026