Crl.O.P.No.17119 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Crl.O.P.No.17119 of 2026 Bharathiraja @ Bharathidasan ... Petitioner(s) Vs. The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, T-1, Ambattur Police Station, Tiruvallur District. ... Respondent(s) Crime No.873 of 2025 Maheshwari … Intervenor(s) permitted to intervene vide order dated 14.07.2026 PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in Crime No.873 of 2025 pending on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s) : Mr.V.Sukumar For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor(s) : Mr.D.Dayalan 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17119 of 2026 ORDER The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.06.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 194(3)(i) of BNSS r/w Sections 80(2) and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.873 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner demanded dowry from the family of the deceased. On account of such alleged dowry harassment, the deceased is stated to have committed suicide. Hence, the case. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner has been in custody since 06.06.2026 and is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. It is the specific submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the wife of the petitioner had been residing at her brother's residence at Chennai for the last two months prior to her death, whereas the petitioner was residing at Virudhunagar. He would further submit that the petitioner had not subjected the deceased to any dowry harassment and that, even assuming there was any harassment, the gap between the alleged separation and the date of death supports the case of the petitioner. Hence, he prayed for the grant of bail. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17119 of 2026 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent, while opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and, on instructions, submitted that a major portion of the investigation has already been completed and that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. He further submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer's report contains a reference to dowry harassment on the part of the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the intervenor reiterated the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the investigation is still pending. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 7. Considering the above factual position, though the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature, it is an admitted fact that the deceased had been residing at her brother's residence at Chennai for the last two months prior to the occurrence, while the petitioner was residing at Virudhunagar. Though the Revenue Divisional Officer's report contains a reference to dowry harassment, considering the totality of the circumstances, the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, the fact that the petitioner 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17119 of 2026 has no bad antecedents, and also the fact that a major portion of the investigation has already been completed, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur and subject to the following conditions: [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself, 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17119 of 2026 as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283]; [f] if the petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 14.07.2026 skr Note: 1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court. 2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17119 of 2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,J. skr To 1. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur 2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal 3. The Inspector of Police, T-1, Ambattur Police Station, Tiruvallur District. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras Crl.O.P.No.17119 of 2026 14.07.2026 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis