logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 2036 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : Crl. O.P. No. 5298 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. KUMARAPPAN
Parties : Loganathan Versus The State rep by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Cuddalore
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: R. Hari, Advocate. For the Respondent: P. Dhileepan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side).
Date of Judgment : 03-03-2026
Head Note :-
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023 - Section 482 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 (1) TLNJ(Cr) 257,

Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023
- Sections 85, 296(b), and 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
- The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019
- Section 269 of BNS Act

2. Catch Words:
- Anticipatory bail
- Dowry demand
- Cruelty
- Custodial interrogation
- Surety
- Bail conditions

3. Summary:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, fearing arrest for alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegations involve cruelty and dowry demands, with a specific claim of strangulation on 29‑07‑2025. The respondent police opposed bail, emphasizing the FIR’s timeline. The Court observed that the dispute stems from matrimonial discord and, at this stage, does not justify custodial interrogation. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond, sureties, reporting requirements, and other conditions. Non‑compliance would lead to cancellation of the order and possible fresh FIR under Section 269 BNS Act.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.48 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.)

1. The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 85, 296(b), and 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in Crime No.48 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police and seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he subjected the defacto complainant to cruelty and made unlawful demands. Hence, the case has been registered.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the specific overt act attributed to the petitioner is that, on 29.07.2025, he allegedly strangled the defacto complainant. However, it is submitted that there was no dowry dispute and that the parties have been living separately for more than six months from 30.07.2025 onwards. Therefore, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail, reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that though the FIR refers to incidents alleged to have occurred since 2024, the complaint was lodged only in the year 2025.

5. Considering the factual position, this Court finds that the dispute appears to have arisen out of matrimonial discord. No doubt, there are allegations against the petitioner in respect of dowry demand; however, at this stage, such allegations do not warrant custodial interrogation. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to appropriate conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Chidambaram on condition that the petitioner shall execute a 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:

(a) If the petitioner 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, every day at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter, 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 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 petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

 
  CDJLawJournal