Muniyammal v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Rajathani

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 24.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD)No.15307 of 2026

1.Muniyammal

2.Ravindran

3.Thavamani

4.Selvi ... Petitioners / Accused

Versus The State of Tamil Nadu rep by The Inspector of Police, Rajathani Police Station, Theni District. (Crime No.281 of 2026) ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.281 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, or on their appearance. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Karunanidhi

For Respondent : Mr.J.Vishnu, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest in connection with Crime No.281 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 191(2), 296(b) and 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, seek the relief of anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are neighbours of the defacto complainant. It is alleged that, owing to previous enmity, A1 trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant when she was alone and attempted to outrage her modesty. When the defacto complainant raised an alarm and resisted the act, A1 fled from the scene. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the present case has been falsely foisted against the petitioners. He further submitted that the petitioners are the family members of A1 who has already been in judicial custody. He also submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶4Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that A1 has already been arrested and remanded to judicial custody. He further submitted that the petitioners had also threatened the defacto complainant and her husband. Though the petitioners have no previous criminal antecedents, if they are granted anticipatory bail, there is every likelihood that they may threaten or intimidate the defacto complainant and her family members. Hence, he strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

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

¶6Considering the nature of the allegations, the fact that A1 has already been arrested and remanded to judicial custody and the petitioners are only the family members of A1 and also taking into account the fact that the petitioners have no previous criminal antecedents, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

¶7Accordingly, 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 learned Judicial Magistrate, Aundippatti, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen 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:

(a) the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

(b) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of one week, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation;

(c) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(d) the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner 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]; and

(f) if the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS, 2023.

24.07.2026 pal To

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Aundippatti.

2.The The Inspector of Police, Rajathani Police Station, Theni District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRLoOP(MD).oNo.15307oofo2026 oK.oRAJASEKARoo,Jo. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopal ORDER oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN oooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.15307oofo2026 Dateoo:o24.07.2026