Natesan v. The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN 1.
Natesan @ Murugan @ Natesapillai 2.
Bathrinarayanan @ Sri Bathirinarayanan 3.
Manimegalai 4.
Sagunthala Petitioners Vs The State Rep By The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Chidambaram (Crime No.6 of 2024) Respondent Prayer:
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to enlarge the petitioners/Accused on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 6 of 2024 pending on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioners :
Mr.U.Ashok Kumar For Respondent :
Mr.S.Santhosh, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 498(A), 406 and 1/6
506(i) of IPC in Crime No.6 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2.
The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner married the de facto complainant; that thereafter, the first petitioner along with the other petitioners, who are the in- laws of the de facto complainant, had demanded dowry and caused mental agony to the de facto complainant; and that they refused to give back the jewels of the de facto complainant and thus committed the aforesaid offences. 3.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the matrimonial dispute pending between the first petitioner and the de facto complainant has been projected as cause of cruelty; that the allegations against the petitioners are false and in any case custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required for the purpose of investigation and hence, sought for anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4.
The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that 2/6
the allegation against the petitioners is that they have retained 25 sovereigns of gold jewels belonging to the de facto complainant. 5.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record.
6.
Considering the nature of the allegations, since the dispute has arises out of a matrimonial dispute between the first petitioner and the de facto complainant and that the other petitioners (2- 4) are the relatives of the first petitioner and since, custodial interrogation is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain 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 on which the order copy made ready, before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chidambaram on condition that the petitioners shall 3/6
execute a separate 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 learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed 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 Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.
[b] the first and the second petitioners shall report before the respondent police twice a week on every Monday and Thursday at 10:30 a.m, until further orders; [c] the third and the fourth petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required; [d]the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [e]the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[f]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 4/6
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].
[g]If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.
05.03.2025 vca 5/6
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
vca To 1.The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Chidambaram (Crime No.6 of 2024) 2.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chidambaram 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court Madras.
05.03.2025 6/6