P.Vijayakukmar v. The State Rep By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Crl.O.P.No.5204 of 2022 1.P.Vijayakumar 2.Vimala 3.V.Veeramani
...Petitioners
Vs.
The State rep. by the The Inspector of Police, W-16 All Women Puliyanthope Police Station, Chennai.
(Crime No.17 of 2021) ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest Crime No.17 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioners : Mr.E.Balaji For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506(i), in Crime No.17 of 2021, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner is the father-in-law, second petitioner is the mother-in-law and the third petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant made a complaint before various forum including the respondent police for the past four months alleging that the 3rd petitioner married the defacto complainant on 11.03.2021 by compulsion that as the 3rd respondent had love affair with the defacto complainant and during that time, he promised to marry her, but, subsequently refused. Thereafter, initially she made a complaint before the State Women's Commission, for which, the defacto complainant and 3rd petitioner appeared before the said commission, where the 3rd petitioner was compelled by the commission to perform the marriage with the defacto complainant otherwise his job would be
disturbed. Accordingly, the 3rd petitioner married the defacto complainant due to the compelling circumstances. This is a case of matrimonial dispute, subsequently, he harassed her to give divorce. Hence, again she gave this fresh complaint. But he falsely contended that she gave torture by demanding money. He being police attempted to play all sort of deceitful tactics to get away from this marriage Hence, the complaint.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that there was a compromise aroused between the defacto complainant and the third petitioner. Accordingly, the third petitioner is ready to pay a sum of Rs.9lakhs as a alimony and the same was accepted by the defacto complainant and a sum of Rs.5 lakhs was obtained by the defacto complainant on 03.01.2022. Further, both the defacto complainant and third petitioner filed a H.M.O.P under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, before the Family Court, Chennai and the case was posted for recording evidence in the month of September 2022 to that effect he enclosed the copy of the H.M.O.P petition. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl side) submits that the petitioner is having affair with many women and hence, the present case has been filed by the defacto complainant. He further submits that the investigation was almost completed.
5. A perusal of the available records before this Court reveals that there is a family dispute between the defacto complainant and the petitioners and the same was solved with the help of their family elders and the defacto complainant had also received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as a alimony.
6. Considering the above facts, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with conditions. 7.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 Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai -8, on condition that the petitioners shall execute separate bonds for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each, 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: (a)the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Court concerned may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;
(b)the petitioners shall report before the respondent police on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of six months (till September 2022) and thereafter as and when required for an interrogation;
(c)the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
(d)the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
(e)on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners 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; (f)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.
-sd/- 25/03/2022 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO 1 THE ADDITIONAL MAHILA COURT,EGMORE, CHENNAI-8. 2 THE FAMILY COURT,CHENNAI 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, W16, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PULIANTHOPE, CHENNAI 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
+2 CC to M/S.E.BALAJI Advocate on payment of necessary charges Sr.4552 CRL OP.5204/2022 Date :25/03/2022 RVR 29/03/2022