Goldin @ Anto Jesus Goldin v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 12/03/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL (**)1.

Godlin @ Anto Jesus Godlin

2. Johana @ Joseph Saleem Johana

3. Jenima @ Jeni .. Petitioners/Accused No.2 to 4 Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, AWPS, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli Dsitrict.

Crime No.12 of 2025.

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr. M.Maharaja Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime no.12 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/ A2 to A4, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 506(i) IPC in Crime No.12 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 1/5

2. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between A1 and the defacto complainant was solemnized on 18.10.2020 as per Christian Rites and customs. After the marriage, A1 and the petitioners herein, who are the in-laws of the defacto complainant demanded additional dowry from her and also threatened with dire consequences. Now, A1 and the defacto complainant are separated and the 1st accused has not given any money for maintenance to the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners are innocent and a false case has been foisted against them. He would further submit that the petitioners are only in-laws of the defacto complainant and their names have been falsely implicated in this Case and hence he seek anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that there was a matrimonial dispute between A1 and the defacto complainant and that there is no previous case pending against the petitioners. He would further submit that the investigation of the case is pending and hence, he objected to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard both side and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions on either side, considering the nature of offence, that these petitioners are only in-laws of the defacto complainant and that 2/5

there is no previous case pending against the petitioners and also considering the relationship between the parties, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions: 7.Accordingly, the petitioners 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 Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram on condition that the petitioners 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: [a] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police (*)every Saturday and Sunday at 04.30 p.m, for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

[b] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[c] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [d] 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 3/5

Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. [e] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

sd/- 12.03.2025 (*)Corrected as per Order of this Hon'ble Court dt.24/03/2025 in Crl.OP(MD).4627/2025.

(**)Corrected as per Order of this Hon'ble Court dt.15/04/2025 in Crl.OP(MD).4627/2025 / TRUE COPY / /04/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TRP TO BE SUBSTITUTED WITH THE ORDER DT.12/03/2025 IS ALREADY DESPATCHED TO BE SUBSTITUTED WITH THE CORRECTED ORDER DT.24/03/2025 IS ALREADY DESPATCHED TO

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram.

2. Do-Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thirunelveli District.

3. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, AWPS, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli Dsitrict.

4/5

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

CRL OP(MD) No.4627 of 2025 Date : 12/03/2025 SL(20.03.2025)/ 5P/ 5C LR SA/VR/SAR. /03.04.2025/5P/5C PNM SA/SAR. /24.04.2025/5P/5C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17.07.2023. 5/5