Crl.O.P.No.26303 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 30.10.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.26303 of 2025 Ashokkanth ... Petitioner Vs. The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station - Kallakurichi, Kallakurichi District. Crime No.68 of 2025 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.68 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.Ranjith Kumar For Intervener : Mr.V.Gunasekar For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) O R D E R 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.26303 of 2025 The petitioner was apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 296(b) and 351(2) of BNS, in Crime No.68 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner married the de facto complainant in the year 2017. They lived together happily for some time, but as they did not have any children, the petitioner began neglecting her. Subsequently, in the year 2019, the petitioner started demanding more money. A previous complaint in this regard lodged and had already been compromised. Later, the petitioner collected 15 sovereigns of gold jewels of the de facto complainant, pledged the same, and misappropriated the money. When she demanded the money back, he avoided her and began attacking her. Unable to bear this, she lodged the complaint. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had already initiated a matrimonial dispute in O.P.No.171 of 2025 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi, which is still pending. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.26303 of 2025 4. The learned counsel for the intervener submitted that 15 sovereigns of gold jewels were taken possession of by the petitioner after pledging and cheating the de facto complainant. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. 5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, reiterating the case of the prosecution and submitted that the FIR was registered only recently and that the investigation is still pending. 6. I have carefully perused the materials available on record, including the FIR. It reveals that the petitioner has collected the jewels of the de facto complainant and also started neglecting her. Though it is stated that the matrimonial dispute was initiated by the petitioner, the said petition was filed after the de facto complainant lodged the complaint. Hence, I am of the view that if granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner may hamper the investigation, and there is no possibility for the jewels being recovered. K.RAJASEKAR, J. 7. In view of the foregoing, this Court is not inclined to grant 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.26303 of 2025 anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 30.10.2025 cda To 1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station - Kallakurichi, Kallakurichi District. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. Crl.O.P.No.26303 of 2025 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis