Kumaresan v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Fourth day of August Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.13115 of 2021 1 KUMARESAN [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 KALAVATHY Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, RANIPET.

(CR.NO.04/2021) For Petitioner : M/S.S.THIRUGNANAM Advocate For Respondent : MR.C.E.PRATAP, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- (The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC in Crime No.04 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that first and second petitioners are the husband and mother-in-law of the defacto complainant respectively. After the marriage, 1st petitioner who is the husband of the defacto complainant is an alcoholic and assaulted the defacto complainant and demanded dowry from her and both the petitioners treated her cruelly. Hence, the present complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant .

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the defacto complainant has always suspected

the character of the 1st accused and inspected and supervised the 1st petitioner and caused mental torture to him. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that due to matrimonial dispute between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant, the present complaint has been filed. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both counsel and with regard to first petitioner/husband, there was some allegations made against him, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner/husband. With regard to the second petitioner, being an in-law to the defacto-complainant, there was no serious allegations levelled against her and hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the second petitioner.

6.Accordingly, the Second petitioner ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet on condition that the second 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

(a) the second petitioner 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 second petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

(c) the second petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (d) the second petitioner 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 second 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]; and;

(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

7. This Criminal Original petition is dismissed as against the first petitioner/husband.

-sd/- 04/08/2021 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 JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RANIPET,RANIPET DISTRICT.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VELLORE [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, RANIPET.

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

+1CC to M/S.S.THIRUGNANAM Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.8157 CRL OP.13115/2021 Date :04/08/2021 CSK 13/08/2021