R.Rajashekar Vs State represented by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2026)

R.Rajashekar Vs State represented by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police in Crime No.33 of 2026 for offences punishable under Sections 324(2) and 329(4) of BNS read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassments Act, should be enlarged on anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Court's answer

Having considered the nature of the allegations — that the victim lady (the defacto complainant, the petitioner's former wife) and her daughter were forced to stay out of the house and their articles were thrown in the public vicinity — the Court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant.

Ratio / Principle

Anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is refused to the petitioner in respect of Crime No.33 of 2026.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail – Refusal – Madras High Court (K. Rajasekar, J.), Crl.O.P.No.2750 of 2026, order dated 06.02.2026 – Petitioner (R. Rajashekar, accused, former husband of the defacto complainant) sought enlargement on anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with FIR Crime No.33 of 2026 of T-1, Ambattur Police Station for offences under Sections 324(2) and 329(4) of BNS and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassments Act – Allegation: during the complainant's absence the petitioner and other accused broke open the house where she resided, threw away her articles and took illegal possession, forcing the victim lady and her daughter to stay out of the house – Investigation pending – Court, considering the nature of the allegations and that the victim lady and her daughter were forced out of the house with their articles thrown in the public vicinity, declined to grant anticipatory bail – Criminal Original Petition dismissed. (Note: the prayer clause refers to Crime No.422 of 2025 whereas the caption, facts and operative portions refer to Crime No.33 of 2026.)

Crl.O.P.No.2750 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 06.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

Crl.O.P.No.2750 of 2026

R.Rajashekar ... Petitioner/Accused

Vs.

The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, T-1, Ambattur Police Station, Ambattur, Chennai.. Crime No.33 of 2026 ... 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.422 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : M/s.L.Rajendran For Respondent : Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

1/4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.2750 of 2026

O R D E R

The petitioner herein apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 324(2) and 329(4) of BNS read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassments Act in Crime No.33 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the former husband of the defacto complainant and she was residing in the house belongs to him and also obtained order of the Court and during her absence, petitioner along with other accused broke open the house and thrown away the articles from the house and taken illegal possession of the same . Hence, the complaint.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that originally the house belong to the petitioner and he also sold the house, however defacto complainant has not vacated the same and false complaint has been lodged and hence he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

2/4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.2750 of 2026

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the

respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that investigation in this case is pending. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials

available on record.

Considering the nature of allegations and the fact that the victim

lady and her daughter was forced to stay out of the house and also thrown their articles in the pubic vicinity , this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed.

06.02.2026

sma

3/4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.2750 of 2026

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

sma

To

1.The Inspector of Police, T-1, Ambattur Police Station, Ambattur,

Chennai..

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

Crl.O.P.No.2750 of 2026

06.02.2026

4/4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis