Neelkanth v. The State Rep By

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

The Petitioner/A1, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 324, 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.1 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are husband and wife and they got married on 13.03.2020 by way of registered marriage. Subsequently, the defacto complainant came to know that the petitioner had illicit relationship with many girls, when she questioned the same, the petitioner along with the other accused abused her in filthy language, harassed her and thereby caused injuries and demanded Rs.10 lakhs towards dowry. Hence, the case.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that due to matrimonial dispute, a false complaint has been lodged. He would further submit that there is no previous case against the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready to abide 1/4

by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that based on the complaint given by the wife of the petitioner in respect of harassment and demand of dowry, the case in Crime No.1 of 2022 came to be registered and subsequently, investigation has been completed and final report has also been filed before the Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai, and the case has been taken up for trial in C.C.No.49 of 2024. He would also submit that there is no previous case against the petitioner. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also finding that the presence of the petitioner is not required, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions: (a) Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the 2/4

date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, 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 said Magistrate, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai, daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of one week and thereafter, on the dates fixed by the learned Trial Judge. [c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[d] the 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 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];

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

04.11.2024 ata 3/4

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

ata 04.11.2024 4/4