Rani @ Sethurani Vs The State of Tamilnadu

The State of Tamil Nadu rep by The Inspector of Police, Mandapam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. (Crime No.39 of 2026) ... Respondent/Complainant

¶12

PRAYER :-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.39 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, or on their appearance.

¶13

For Petitioners : M/s.N.Juliet Latha

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Counsel for State of TN (Criminal Side)

¶15

1/7

¶16

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

¶17

CRL OP(MD). No.14800 of 2026

¶18

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶19

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest in connection with Crime

¶20

No.39 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324, 506(i), 494, 498(A) of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, seek the relief of anticipatory bail.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are the family members of A1. It is alleged that A1 is the husband of the defacto complainant and that, owing to matrimonial disputes, they have been living separately since the year 2022. It is further alleged that the petitioners demanded custody of the child born to the defacto complainant and A1, and that they frequently quarrelled with and threatened the defacto complainant. It is also alleged that A1 has contracted a third marriage during the subsistence of the earlier marriage. Based on the said allegations, the present case has been registered against the petitioners and the other accused.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that

¶23

2/7

¶24

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

¶25

CRL OP(MD). No.14800 of 2026

¶26

the present case has been falsely foisted against the petitioners. She further submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. She further submitted that the major allegations are only against A1, who is the husband of the defacto complainant, and that the petitioners are merely the in-laws of the defacto complainant. She further submitted that, insofar as the allegations relating to the assault are concerned, a separate FIR had already been registered in the year 2022. It was also submitted that the present complaint has been lodged only after the allegation that A1 had contracted a third marriage. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶27

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioners are also involved in the commission of the alleged offences. He further submitted that there are no previous cases against the petitioners. If the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, there is every likelihood that they may threaten or intimidate the defacto complainant. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶28

3/7

¶29

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

¶30

CRL OP(MD). No.14800 of 2026

¶31

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶32

Considering the nature of the allegations, the fact that the principal allegations are against A1, the husband of the defacto complainant, the fact that the petitioners are the in-laws of the defacto complainant, that the spouses have been living separately since the year 2022, and that proceedings between the parties have already been initiated, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

¶33

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, Rameshwaram on 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:

¶34

(a) the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and

¶35

4/7

¶36

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

¶37

CRL OP(MD). No.14800 of 2026

¶38

the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶39

(b) the 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 the interrogation;

¶40

(c) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶41

(d) the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶42

(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner 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] ; and

¶43

(f) if the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS, 2023.

20.07.2026

pal

5/7

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

¶48

CRL OP(MD). No.14800 of 2026