R Selvaraj v. The Inspector of Police, Awps , Thiruparankundram

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 29.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

1.R.Selvaraj

2.S.Malini

3.S.Kavitha ...Petitioners/Accused

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Tirupparankundram All Women Police Station Madurai. (Crime No. 9 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioners : M/s.C.N.S.Savitha

Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.P.Vetrivel Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :-For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 9 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 498(a), 406, 354(a) of IPC r/w Section 4 of TNPHW Act, in Crime No. 9 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner is the father-in-law and the second petitioner is the mother-in-law and the third petitioner is the sister-in-law of the defacto complainant. After marriage, the husband of the defacto complainant joined with his family members committed harassment and demanded more money and also after some times, the husband of the defacto complainant left from India and is working in foreign country. By taking advantage of the absence of the defacto complainant's husband, the first petitioner has committed sexual assault on her on verious occasions and after informing the same to the husband of the defacto complainant also, there is no action taken by her husband and he has not returned to India. After few years, the defacto complainant was also forced to out of the matrimonial house and criminally intimidated. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that false allegations have been made against these petitioners and there was a separate enquiry was conducted before the District Welfare Officer, wherein the defacto complainant has not made any serious allegation and only at the time of lodging FIR, various allegations have been added. They have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they are ready to cooperate with the investigaiton. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the A1 is still in abroad and he has not returned to India. He further submitted that the petitioners have no previous case. He further submitted that the investigation is pending and noone is arrested in this case and also 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 relationship between the parties and also considering the fact that as per the FIR, there is no serious allegation against these petitioners and more particularly, as far as the allegation relating to the sexual assault is concerned, the alleged occurrence took place in the year 2023, however FIR has been registered after lapse of three years and also no previous case is pending against the petitioners, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the Additional Mahila Court, Madurai, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of three weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation. [c] the petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation. [d] the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature. [e] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [f] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [g] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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]. [h] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

29.06.2026 apd

To

1.The Additional Mahila Court, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Tirupparankundram All Women Police Station Madurai.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

CRLeOP(MD).eNo.e12739eofe2026 ooooK.RAJASEKAR,oJ oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooapd oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooORDER oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN oooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.o12739oofo2026 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooDateoo:o29.06.2026