R.V.Arvindraju v. State Rep. By
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
The petitioners/A1 to A5, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 506(i) of I.P.C, in Crime No.10 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that there was some misunderstanding between the 1st petitioner and the de-facto complainant and both of them travelled to Ranipet on 18.11.2022 as the 1st petitioner had planned his trip to Sabari Malai. On the said day, without any reasons, the de-facto complainant had invited her parents and created a hue and cry and insisted the 1st petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards the purchase of cosmetic and for her personal expenses. When the 1st petitioner refused for the same and tried to control the situation and the behavior and attitude of the de-fcato complainant towards the 1st petitioner and his family members. Tthe petitioners are alleged to have caused dowry harassment to the de-facto complainant and threatened her. Hence the case.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent would submit that the petitioners are alleged to have caused dowry harassment to the de-facto complainant and threatened her. However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record including the FIR.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also the relationship among the parties, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 2 to 5.
7. As far as the 1st petitioner is concerned, the petition is dismissed with regard to A1. As far as, the petitioners 2 to 5 are concerned, they 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 learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai-8, on condition that the petitioners 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 2 to 5 shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of 10 days;
[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 abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
04.10.2023 nvi
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
nvi 04.10.2023