Kalithasan v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep By, the Inspector of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 28.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Kalithasan ... Petitioner / Accused No.1

Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District. (Crime No.56 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.56 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, or on his appearance. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Pandi Dorai

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.56 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 296(b) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, seeks the relief of anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/A1, namely Kalithasan, is the husband of the defacto complainant. Their marriage was solemnised in December 2022. It is alleged that, from the date of marriage, the defacto complainant was subjected to continuous harassment by A1 and his family members. It is further alleged that the petitioner demanded additional dowry, found fault with the dowry articles already given, and repeatedly harassed the defacto complainant. The other accused also allegedly joined together in abusing and threatening the defacto complainant, stating that she was not fit to be the wife of A1. It is further alleged that A1 and A2 physically assaulted the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the incident was informed to her parents, and she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home. Subsequently, in February 2026, A1 caused a legal notice to be issued to the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the present complaint came to be lodged.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. He contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are exaggerated and that a minor matrimonial dispute has been blown out of proportion. He also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶4Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the FIR has been registered only recently, the investigation is still in progress, and no accused has been arrested so far. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

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

¶6A perusal of the allegations would show that the major allegations are directed against the petitioner. It is also seen that the alleged incidents had taken place over a period of time and that the complaint came to be lodged only after the petitioner had issued a legal notice to the defacto complainant in February 2026. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

¶7Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Tenkasi, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that:

(a) the petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(d) the petitioner 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 petitioner 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.

28.07.2026 pal To

1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Tenkasi.

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRLoOP(MD)No.15595oofo2026 oK.oRAJASEKARoo,Jo. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopal ORDER oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN oooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.15595oofo2026 Dateoo:o28.07.2026