Madras High Court
J.Vivek vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of … on 30 April, 2026
CRL OP(MD). No. 8169 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Date : 30.04.2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
CRL OP(MD). No. 8169 of 2026
J.Vivek ...Petitioner/A1
Vs
1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Usilampatti All Women Police Station,
Madurai.
(Crime No.20 of 2025) ...1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Vijayalakshmi ...2nd Respondent/ De-facto
Complainant
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian,
Advocate.
For R1 : Mr.M.Karunanithi,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R2 : Mr.K.Jaya Mohan,
Advocate
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS
PRAYER : For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.20 of 2025 on the file of
the respondent police.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No. 8169 of 2026
ORDER :
The Court made the following order :-
The petitioner/A1, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the
respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 294(b),
420, 406, 506(i) of IPC read with Section 4 of TNPHW Act, in Crime
No.20 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory
bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, who is the 1st
accused in this case, suppressed the fact of his first marriage and married
the de-facto complainant. Thereafter, the 2nd accused, who is the father of
the 1st accused, allegedly abused the de-facto complainant in filthy
language. All the other accused persons allegedly stated that there is a
girl from abroad available for the 1st accused to marry. Hence, the present
case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this
case, and that he is in no way connected with the aforesaid incident. He
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No. 8169 of 2026
has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would
further submit that this is the second anticipatory bail application filed
before this Court and that the co-accused in this case were already
granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16863 of 2025
on 23.02.2026. Hence, he prays for the grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing
for the respondent police would submit that the issue pertains to a family
dispute and that there are no previous cases registered against the
petitioner. He would further submit that co-accused were already granted
anticipatory bail by this Court. However, he opposes the grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and the
nature of the offences charged against the petitioner, and considering the
fact that there is a family dispute between the parties and that there are no
3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No. 8169 of 2026
previous cases registered against the petitioner, and further considering
that the co-accused were already granted anticipatory bail by this Court,
this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to
the following conditions:
[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be
released on anticipatory bail on condition to execute a bond
for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with
two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti, Madurai District,
and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall deposit a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) to the credit of
Crime No.20 of 2025 before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Usilampatti, Madurai District. Upon such
deposit, the learned Magistrate shall accept the sureties
furnished by the petitioner. Further, the de-facto
complainant is at liberty to withdraw the said amount by
filing an appropriate application before the trial Court;
4/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No. 8169 of 2026[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent
police once in a week i.e. on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m.
for a period of four weeks;
[d] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of
similar nature.
[e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during
investigation or trial.
[f] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or
witness either during investigation or trial.
[g] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the
learned Judicial 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 petitioner
released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court
5/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No. 8169 of 2026himself as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].
[h] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can
be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
(P D B J)
30.04.2026
mknTo
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Usilampatti, Madurai District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Usilampatti All Women Police Station,
Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No. 8169 of 2026
P. DHANABAL, J.
mkn
ORDER
IN
CRL OP(MD) No. 8169 of 2026
Date : 30.04.2026
7/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
