Selvam v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Maraneri

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 17.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD)No.14691 of 2026 Selvam ... Petitioner / Sole Accused

Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Maraneri Police Station, Virudhunagar District. (Crime No.139 of 2026) ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.139 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, or on his appearance. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muniyandi for Mr.J.Jeya Aron Raja

For Respondent : Mr.J.Vishnu, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.139 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant. It is alleged that, when the defacto complainant sought permission from the petitioner to visit her relatives, the petitioner became enraged and assaulted her by kicking her, despite knowing fully well that she was four months pregnant. It is further alleged that, due to the assault, the defacto complainant sustained severe pain and was admitted to the hospital. Thereafter, the complaint came to be lodged, based on which the respondent police registered the present case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the occurrence arose out of a sudden quarrel between the spouses and that, if the petitioner is not granted anticipatory bail, it would further aggravate the matrimonial dispute. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and, therefore, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶4Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the investigation is still in progress. He further submitted that the petitioner had assaulted a woman who was four months pregnant, causing serious injuries, and therefore opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶5This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the specific allegation that the petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant despite knowing that she was four months pregnant, thereby causing injuries to her and the unborn child, and the fact that the investigation is still in progress, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Further, if anticipatory bail is granted at this stage, there is every likelihood of the petitioner intimidating the defacto complainant or interfering with the investigation. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

17.07.2026 pal To

1.The Inspector of Police, Maraneri Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRLoOP(MD).oNo.14691oofo2026 oK.oRAJASEKARoo,Jo. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopal ORDER oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN oooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.14691oofo2026 Dateoo:o17.07.2026