M.Antonyraj Jegan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 07/02/2024 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI M.Antonyraj Jegan, ... Petitioner/Accused Vs The Inspector of Police, Mukkudal Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
In Crime No.239/2023..
... Respondent/Complainant Mariya Antony Puppy
...Petitioner/Intervener/ Defacto Complainant
in Crl MP(MD)No. 1433 of 2024 For Petitioner : Mr.A.P.Sahaya Robin, Advocate for M/s.Dictum Law Firm, For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambiselvan, Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervenor : Mr.P.P.Alwin Balan, Advocate in Crl MP(MD)No. 1433 of 2024 1/6
PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.
PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.239/2023 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.12.2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 354C and 509 IPC and Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in Crime No.239 of 2023 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was solemnized on 14.05.2007 and they were blessed with three children. The petitioner suspected the character of the defacto complainant and scolded her in filthy language. He has sent a morphed video to the relatives of the defacto complainant and uploaded their personal video in Twitter. Hence the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that it is purely a family 2/6
dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant has not taken care of the children and she is having illicit relationship with one Ramkumar and when the same was questioned by the petitioner, she lodged this false complaint. He would further submit that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 24.12.2023. Hence, he prays for bail.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the investigation is yet to be completed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submits that the petitioner is having the habit of seeing the porn video and he compelled the defacto complainant to act accordingly and when she refused to do the same, she uploaded their personal video in the Twitter. The petitioner has not allowed the defacto complainant to see their children.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the period of incarceration and the fact that it is a matrimonial dispute, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
8. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing 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 learned District Munsif cum Judicial 3/6
Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi, and on further conditions that: (a)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 is directed to appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.
(c)the petitioner is directed to co-operate with the defacto complainant for taking her Certificate and her belongings from the matrimonial home, if she desires. In that case, the respondent Police are directed to give protection to the defacto complainant, when she enters into the petitioner's house for taking her belongings; (d)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
(e)the petitioner 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 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]; and; 4/6
(g)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.
sd/- 07/02/2024 / TRUE COPY / 07/02/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.I /II /III /IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
SSB TO THE DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, CHERANMAHADEVI.
DO THROUGH:
THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MUKKUDAL POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.
THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, TIRUNELVELI.
THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
5/6
+1 CC to M/s.M/S.DICTUM LAW FIRM, Advocate ( SR-1515[I] dated 07/02/2024 )
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.1142 of 2024 Date :07/02/2024 PKP/07.02.2024/ 6P/ 7C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6