Madras HC Grants Bail To Woman Accused Of Attacking Someone She Suspected Of Having An Affair With Her Husband

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Special Court’s rejection of bail should be set aside and the appellant released on bail, considering the allegations, her period in custody and the status of the investigation.

The court held

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order dismissing bail and directed the appellant’s release on bail upon execution of a bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties for like sums, subject to conditions including attendance at hearings, non-interference with witnesses or evidence, and non-abscondence.

It also directed

The police were directed to ensure the de facto complainant’s life and safety were protected; breach of conditions could result in appropriate action under law, and absconding could lead to a fresh FIR under Section 229A IPC.

01Facts

The appellant was arrested on 23 September 2026 in Crime No. 190 of 2026, registered for offences under Sections 329(4), 296(b), 333, 118(1), 109(1) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

p. 2

The prosecution alleged that, owing to prior enmity, the appellant and her sons entered the victim’s home and assaulted her with stones and wooden logs

p. 2

After the Special Court dismissed her bail application, the appellant appealed under the SC/ST Act, arguing that the victim had been discharged from hospital and that further custody was unnecessary for investigation

p. 1, 3

The victim could not be served notice despite repeated attempts

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Special Court’s rejection of bail should be set aside and the appellant released on bail, considering the allegations, her period in custody and the status of the investigation.

pp. 3–4

ii.2. Whether the appeal could be disposed of despite the victim not having been served notice, after repeated attempts to serve her.

p. 3

03Law Applied

The appeal was brought under the SC/ST Act provision identified in the judgment as Section 14(a).

p. 1

The prosecution offences were charged under the BNS, 2023, the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

p. 2

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the period of incarceration, the appellant’s status as a woman, and whether further custody was required for investigation.

p. 4

It also relied on P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala, [(2005) AIR SCW 5560], for the proposition that the trial court may take appropriate action in accordance with law if bail conditions are breached.

p. 5

Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3 Section 14

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 109 Section 118 Section 296 Section 329 Section 333 Section 351

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the victim had been discharged from hospital and that the appellant had been in custody since 23 September 2026.

pp. 3–4

Taking account of the alleged assault, the period of incarceration and the appellant’s status as a woman, it concluded that further detention was not required for investigation and that bail was appropriate.

p. 4

Although notice to the victim had not been served, the Court accepted that repeated efforts had failed because she could not be found at home and proceeded to decide the appeal.

p. 3