Rajeshkumar v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Eighth day of February Two Thousand and Twenty Four PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI 1 RAJESHKUMAR 2 THANGARAJ 3 KALIAMMAL 4 SOODAMANI 5 SELVAMANI ... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 5 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THENI, THENI DISTRICT.

CR.NO.61/2023 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : MR.SATHYACHIDAMBARAM Advocate For Respondent : MR.P.KOTTAICHAMY,Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. PRAYER: FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.61/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE.

1/6

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the alleged offence under Sections 109, 294(b), 323, 406 and 498(A) of IPC, in Crime No.61 of 2023, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner and the defacto complainant are husband and wife. After their marriage, the petitioners harassed the defacto complainant demanding more dowry. Hence, initially, the defacto complainant gave a complaint and the same was registered in Crime No.9 of 2019, thereafter, the case was referred as further action dropped, due to compromise reached between the parties. Thereafter also, the petitioners harassed the defacto complainant, demanding more dowry and pledged her jewels without her knowledge, hence, the present complainant has been filed. (*)3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is a matrimonial dispute between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant. The petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are in-laws of the defacto complainant and they are no way connected with the alleged offences. Hence, So, he prays for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that it is the 2/6

matrimonial dispute between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant. Hence, he has no objection to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. (*)5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that it is the matrimonial dispute between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant and there is no specific overt act against the petitioner Nos.2 to 5, who are in-laws of the defacto complainant, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner Nos.2 to 5. Since the first petitioner is a husband and serious allegations are made against him, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to first petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed. In respect of the petitioner Nos.2 to 5, this petition is allowed and in respect of the first petitioner, this petition is dismissed. The petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are granted anticipatory bail and 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 of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Additional Mahila Court, Theni, on condition that the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each, 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)if the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 failed to surrender before the concerned 3/6

Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled; (b)the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Court concerned may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

(c)the petitioner No.2 shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 p.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, he shall report before the respondent Police as and when required. The petitioner Nos.3 to 5 shall report before the respondent Police as and when required; (d)the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(e)the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 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 Nos.2 to 5 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 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/- 28/02/2024 (*)Amended as per the order of this Hon'ble Court in CRL OP(MD)No.3080 of 2024 dated 25/03/2024. Further Time is extended for further two weeks for executing sureties, from the date of receipt of a copy of the amended Order.

/ TRUE COPY / /04/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar (CS- I / II /III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

INDU TO TO BE SUBSTITUTED WITH THE ORDER DATED 28/02/2024 ALREADY DESPATCHED 1.THE ADDITIONAL MAHILA JUDGE, THENI.

2.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THENI, THENI DISTRICT.

3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1 CC to M/s.S.SATHYA CHIDAMBARAM, Advocate ( SR-2549[I] dated 29/02/2024 ) 5/6

ORDER

IN Date :28/02/2024 RK/GS(11/03/2024) 6P / 5C INDU SS/GS/SAR - /16/04/2024/ 6P 5C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6