High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 10 MAD CK 3121

Hariharan & Ors. vs The State

Madras High Court · Decided on 15 October 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
N. Ramesh, J
CASE NUMBER
CRL OP No. 30029 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 658 words

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest by the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 85, 127(b), 115(2), 296(b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in Crime No. 50 of 2026, seek anticipatory bail.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner is the husband of the de facto complainant, and the other petitioners are her in-laws. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners suppressed the factum of the first petitioner's prior marriage, which was dissolved only immediately prior to the present marriage. It is further alleged that the first petitioner suppressed his impotency, and that the de facto complainant was wrongfully detained inside the house for the entire day, where she was assaulted and harassed by the petitioners. Consequently, the present complaint was lodged.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and consequently, prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail.

4.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, stating that the investigation is still pending and their custodial interrogation is necessary. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

5.

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6.

Taking into consideration that the petitioners 2 to 3 are the in-laws of the de facto complainant, this Court is inclined to grant them anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions. However, there are specific allegations of harassment against the first petitioner, and the investigation is still pending. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner, and the petition stands dismissed as against the first petitioner.

7.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioners no. 2 to 3 be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the copy of this order is made ready, on condition that each petitioner shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions that:

(a)

If the petitioners no. 2 to 3 fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b)

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 identify proofs to ensure their identity;

(c)

The second and fourth petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10:30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. The third petitioner, being a woman, is exempted from daily appearance but shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation;

(d)

On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the 2nd petitioner released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e)

If the second and third petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

8.

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition in respect of 1st petitioner is dismissed and in respect of petitioners 2 to 4 is ordered.