B.Sathiyasundaram v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Crl.O.P.No.24823 of 2021 1.B.Sathiyasundaram 2.K.Balaiya 3.B.Kannika Parameswari ... Petitioners Vs.
The State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, All women Police Station, Panruti, Cuddalore.
Crime No.39 of 2021 ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.39 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Padmanabhan For Respondent : MR.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional public Prosecutor For Intervenor : W.Camyles Gandhi
ORDER
The petitioners, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 498(A), 494, 294(b), 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.39 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent police stated that she got married with A1/Sathiyasundaram on 26.10.2015 and she was gifted 30 sovereigns of Gold articles with one lakhs rupees and two lakhs rupees worth of household articles and led the matrimonial life happily for
one year, thereafter, the A1 took the ATM card of the defacto complainant and used to come in drunken mode and picked quarrel with the defacto complainant. Thereafter defacto complainant left the matrimonial house lived with her parents and in the meanwhile, A1 got illegal intimacy with one Kalaivani/petitioner herein, the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, due to which, A1 along with his parents abused her with filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences and the defaco complainant came to know that A1 got married with the petitioner. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner have not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, the learned counsel prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the Intervenor raised strong objection by stating that A1 got married with the petitioner without the knowledge of the defacto complainant.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that investigation is not yet completed. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of bail.
6. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the second and third petitioners are senior citizens and they are being the in-laws of the defacto complainant , this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the second and third petitioners and with regard to the first petitioner and being the husband of the defacto complainant and the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the second and third petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days after lifting of lockdown or the commencement of the Court's normal functioning whichever is earlier before the learned Judicial Magistrate - II, Panruti, on condition that the petitioners 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 and third 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 second and third petitioners being a Senior Citizen shall report before the respondent police as and when required for an interrogation;
[d] the second and third petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
[e] the second and third 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 second and third petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions has been imposed and the second and third petitioners are 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;
[g] if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC;
7. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition in respect of the first petitioner stands dismissed. The Criminal Original Petition in respect of the second petitioner stands ordered. -sd/- 04/01/2022 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 JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.II, PANRUTI.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CUDDALORE [FOR INFORMATION].
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PANRUTI, CUDDALORE DISTRICT 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
+1 CC to M/S.D.PADMANABHAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.85 +1 CC to M/S.W.CAMYLES GANDHI, Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.106 CRL OP.24823/2021 Date :04/01/2022 JPA 20/01/2022