K.Priya v. The State, Rep. By

P. DHANABAL.J., The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Section 465, 499 of I.P.C. and 4 of TNPHW Act 4, I.T. (Amendment) Act 2008 INFC 66 E, in Cr. No.62 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that since there is a family dispute between the petitioner and her husband, the petitioner's husband namely T.S. Ravi Yadav along with other accused trespassed into the petitioner's house and assaulted the petitioner's mother and kidnapped the daughter of the petitioner. Hence the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and she has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. However, on instructions, the learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that since there is a family dispute between the petitioner and her husband, the petitioner's husband namely T.S. Ravi Yadav along with other accused trespassed into the petitioner's house and assaulted the petitioner's mother and kidnapped the daughter of the petitioner. Hence he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. The intervener/defacto complainant, appeared in person submitted that the petitioner is the wife of the defacto complainant's younger brother. Despite this dispute, the defacto complainant along with her younger sister and mother has maintained their dignity in society. The petitioner, however, has engaged in harmful actions against the defacto complainant and her family. To exact vengeance, the petitioner published false and defamatory content on Youtube alleging the kidnapping of Ravi Yadav's young daughters. The impact of the false allegations has been profound. The defacto complainant and her family now live in fear of public violence and legal troubles, experiencing significant psychological distress. He further submitted that if petitioner granted bail, she may further tamper

with or destroy evidence to avoid legal scrutiny. The intervener further submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender with a criminal background who has orchestrated multiple marriages for person gain, targeting wealthy individuals, NRIs, and divorces through matrimonial sites and mediators.

6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7. Considering the rival submissions putforth on either side and the fact that there is a dispute between the parties in respect of custody of child the relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant and also A1 was arrested and released on bail, and also considering the nature of offences, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

8.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his/her appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai on condition that the 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent police on every Saturday at 10.00 a.m, for a period of four weeks.

[b] the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts of the Court or to any police officer.

[c] the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] the petitioner shall make himself/herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the 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].

[g] If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

09.09.2024 nsl

P.DHANABAL,J nsl CRL O.P. No.22063 of 2024 09.09.2024