← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/10671/2020ordered

Dilipkumar v. The Inspector Of Police

2020-10-01Honourable Mr Justice V. Bharathidasan3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 01/10/2020 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.BHARATHIDASAN Dilipkumar ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Vadaseri Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

Cr.No. 536 of 2020. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.C.Susi Kumar, Advocate.

For Respondent : M/s.S.E.Veronica Vincent, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :-For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.536 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as A1, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 447,294(b), 427 and 506(ii) of IPC r/w Section 4 of TNPHW Act, in Crime No.536 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant. The case of the prosecution is that due to matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, the defacto complainant left the matrimonial home and stayed in her parental house. On the date of occurrence, the petitioner along with other accused said to have trespassed into the defacto complainant's house and abused the defacto complainant by using filthy language and assaulted her with hands and caused damage to the two wheeler and her house. Based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the crime has been registered against the petitioner.

1/3

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that due to matrimonial dispute, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that due to matrimonial dispute, the occurrence said to have taken place. He further submitted that the injured sustained only simple injury and she was treated as out patient.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact due to matrimonial dispute, the occurrence said to have taken place and the injured sustained only simple injury and she was treated as out patient, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 7.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or his appearance, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Judicial Magistrate cum Additional Mahila Court, Nagercoil, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.

(b)the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

(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 2/3

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; (f)if the accused/petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

sd/- 01/10/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CUM ADDITIONAL MAHILA COURT, NAGERCOIL 2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADASERI POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. 4.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.10671 of 2020 Date :01/10/2020 VSG PK/SMA/SAR-4/07.10.2020 : 3P/5C 3/3