Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14296 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD)No.14296 of 2026 1.Vincent 2.Panneerselvam 3.Pakhiyaselvi ... Petitioners/Accused 1 to 3 Vs The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by, The Sub Inspector of Police, Thirumayam All Woman Police Station, Pudukkottai District. (Crime No.11 of 2026) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.A.A.S.Laxman Prakash For Respondent : Mr.J.Vishnu Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.R.Sakthivel PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.11/2026 on the file of the Respondent Police. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14296 of 2026 ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 85 of BNS and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.11 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The allegation against the petitioners is that the first petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant and the second and third petitioners are her in-laws. It is alleged that the first petitioner continuously harassed the defacto complainant on account of dowry demand and also obtained various jewels from her. Subsequently, the petitioners have blamed the family members of the defacto complainant for insufficient seer given for the marriage and they also continuously demanded and collected huge amount. It is further alleged that the defacto complainant had not been properly taken care of by the petitioners. It is also stated that the first petitioner used to return home after consuming liquor and also attacked her repeatedly. Hence, unable to bear the same, she has informed the same to her in-laws, however, the first petitioner joined with the other petitioners and threatened her with dire consequences and continuously demanded Rs.10 lakhs and car etc. Unable to bear the same, she has lodged the complaint as early as in the month of December 2025 and thereafter, the case was registered after preliminary enquiry. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14296 of 2026 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are concocted and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that it is true that the petitioners are in possession of certain articles of the defacto complainant, with regard to which, they have filed an undertaking affidavit before this Court that they will return back the same. He also submitted that due to misunderstanding, there was regular quarrel between the parties, which has been termed as a harassment and dowry demand by the defacto complainant and that the petitioners are ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that though the defacto complainant received an affidavit of undertaking filed by the petitioners, one titan watch is not properly listed in the list of properties and however, as per the overall affidavit, the defacto complainant is satisfied with the fact that the petitioners have come forward with the present undertaking to return the articles belonging to her. He further submitted that as far as the first petitioner is concerned, there are severe allegations of physical harassment and attack and hence, opposed to grant anticipatory bail. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14296 of 2026 5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reiterated the prosecution case and would submit that there are two previous cases against the first petitioner and investigation in this case is pending and opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7. Considering the rival submissions on either side and a perusal of the FIR reveals that various acts of harassment and demand of money has been stated. It is also stated that the petitioners have demanded Rs.10 lakhs and car from the defacto complainant and further, several instances of harassment is also stated in the complaint. However, considering the fact that now, the petitioners have come forward to return back the jewels and other articles belonging to the defacto complainant and filed an affidavit of undertaking before this Court that they will return back the listed properties, I am of the view that custodial interrogation is not necessary in this case and hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, 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, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District, on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14296 of 2026 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: [b] the first petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation. The petitioners 2 and 3 shall appear before the respondent Police as and when required for interrogation. [c] the properties listed in the undertaking affidavit filed by the petitioners including the car shall be deposited before the learned Magistrate concerned and the learned Magistrate shall return the same to the defacto complainant on proper identification. [d] the petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation. [e] the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature. [f] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [g] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [h] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14296 of 2026 against the petitioners 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]. [i] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S. 22.07.2026 Lm To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District. 2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Thirumayam All Woman Police Station, Pudukkottai District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14296 of 2026 K.RAJASEKAR,J. Lm ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14296 of 2026 Date : 22.07.2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis