Naveenkumar v. The State Rep By Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13-12-2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRL OP NO. 31116 of 2024 NAVEENKUMAR S/O. GURURAJAN, NO.19/9, MARIYAMMAN KOVIL 6TH STREET, TIRUVANNAMALAI, TIRUVANNAMALAI - 606 601NO.19 9, MARIYAMMAN KOVIL 6TH STREET, TIRUVANNAMALAI, TIRUVANNAMALAI 606 601 PETITIONER(S) Vs THE STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE KANATHUR POLICE STATION, CHENGALPATTUR DISTRICT. CRIME NO. 197 OF 2024NO.19 9, MARIYAMMAN KOVIL 6TH STREET, TIRUVANNAMALAI, TIRUVANNAMALAI 606 601 RESPONDENT(S) For Petitioner(s): E.SATHIYARAJ ELANGOVAN For Respondent(s): S.Santhosh Govt.Advocate (Crl.side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 118(2), 351(3), 108 of BNS and Section 4B(1) of THPHW Act, 2002 in Crime No.197 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 1/6

2. Pleading innocence on the part of the petitioner, false implication in the case, learned counsel for the petitioner seek indulgence of this Court. He further submits that there are no previous cases against the petitioner. However, the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this court.

3. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant, Abitha is that her daughter got acquainted with the accused through Facebook and later, both families decided to get the petitioner and the daughter of the defacto complainant married and subsequently an engagement was conducted on 16.09.2024 and subsequently, there was a quarrel between the defacto complainant's daughter and the petitioner. Thereafter, both families decided to fix the marriage on 02.02.2025 whileso on 17.11.2024, the petitioner along with his brother had come to the house of the defacto complainant in an inebriated condition and picked up quarrel with the victim stating that she was having relationship with several persons in social media i.e. instagram and facebook and abused her due to which, the defacto complainant drank toilet cleaner and attempted to commit suicide and she was admitted to hospital on 18.11.2024 and later she died on 21.11.2024. 2/6

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and a false complaint has been filed against the petitioner. He would submit that there was a love affair between the petitioner and the defacto complainant and marriage was also fixed. While so, the defacto complainant's daughter had continued her relationship with several persons in social media and since the petitioner had questioned the same, the victim had committed suicide by consuming toilet cleaner. He would also submit that there is absolutely no material to show that the petitioner had abetted the victim to commit suicide and the petitioner is ready to abide any stringent condition.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that the victim is the fiance of the petitioner. Since the petitioner had abused her stating that she is having friendship with several other persons in social media, the victim had consumed toilet cleaner and she was admitted in the hospital and later she succumbed without responding to treatment. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and he opposed for granting anticipatory bail.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent and perused the 3/6

materials available on record, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions and accordingly, he is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sholinganallur, Chengalpattu, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties 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 petitioner 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

[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.

4/6

[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 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 269 B.N.S.

13.12.2024 kkd 5/6

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

kkd 13.12.2024 6/6