T.Kumar v. State Rep By,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.12.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.17960 of 2020
1. T.Kumar
2. Chandira ... Petitioners Vs.
The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Madipakkam (St.Thomas Mount), (Cr.No.19 of 2019) ... Respondent Prayer:
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Connection with the Crime No.19 of 2019 pending on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(This case has been heard through video conference) The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 294(b), 352 and 506(2), in Crime No.19 of 2019, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the 1st accused and the defacto complainant namely Janani took place on 30.04.2017, after their marriage the first accused was working at UK, thereafter the defacto complainant came to know that the first accused borrowed money from several persons, therefore, the first accused demanded her monthly income for household expenses. The further allegation is that the first accused had demanded dowry and also harassed her for the same. Hence the complaint was registered as against the petitioners.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner are fatherin-law and mother-in-law of the defacto complainant and also submitted that after their marriage the defacto complainant and the first accused were living separately.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the marriage between the 1st accussed and the defacto complainant namely Janani took place on 30.04.2017. He further submitted that the accused persons harassed the de-facto complainant by demanding additional dowry. He further submitted that the petitioners are the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the defacto complainant. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Taking into consideration the facts and submissions of the learned Counsel, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions;
6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the copy of the order is made ready, before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Alandur, on condition that each of the petitioner shall 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent Police every day at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter every Monday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. [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].
[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
8.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.
-sd/- 08/12/2020 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 COURT, ALANDUR.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CHENGALPET [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, MADIPAKKAM(TS.THOMAS MOUNT) +1CC to M/S.S.SARAVANAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR NO.8033 CRL OP.17960/2020 Date :08/12/2020 MK:14/12/2020