Krishna Kumar v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-02-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL OP NO. 2818 of 2025 Krishna Kumar S/o.Krishna Murthy and 3 Others Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Arakkonam AWPS, Police Station, Ranipet District, (Crime No.08 of 2025).
Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s):
K.Sathish Kumar M.Sathishkumar S.Raja Ravi Varma D.Ajith Kumar B.Karthik R.Lokeshwaran A.Prabhakaran For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Balaji Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The Petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC, in Crime No.08 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 1/4
2.The case of the prosecution is that the 1st petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant and the other petitioners are her in-laws. The accused subjected the complainant to cruelty in connection with a dowry demand and thereby committed the above said offence.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the defacto complainant left the matrimonial home on her own. The 1st petitioner has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. He also submits that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the de facto complainant has alleged that the 1st petitioner committed the offence of cruelty in connection with a dowry demand. Hence, he opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
2/4
6. On perusal of the First Information Report, it is seen that the allegations relate to a matrimonial dispute between the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant. Considering the nature of allegations, as it is a matrimonial dispute and custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not required for the investigation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 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 of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Walaja, Ranipet District, on condition that each of the petitioner shall 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 respondent Police or the Police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate, on further condition that: [a] if the petitioners fail to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, this Order shall stand automatically cancelled; [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.
[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. 3/4
SUNDER MOHAN,J.
rpl [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 Petitioner 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];
[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.
05-02-2025 rpl To
1. The Inspector of Police, Arakkonam AWPS, Police Station, Ranipet District 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai CRL OP NO. 2818 of 2025 4/4