← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/18958/2022partly allowed

Rajesh Kanna v. The Inspector Of Police

2022-11-03Honourable Mr Justice A.A.Nakkiran3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 03/11/2022 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.A.NAKKIRAN

1. Rajesh Kanna,

2. Thambiraj,

3. Manonmani,

4. Rajeshwari, ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 Vs State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Lalgudi, Tiruchirappalli.

Crime No.27 of 2022.

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : M/s.Anwarsameem S, Advocate. For Respondent : Mrs.M.Aasha, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.27 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners sought permission of this Court to withdraw this petition insofar as the first petitioner is concerned and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2.Recording the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as withdrawn insofar as the first petitioner is concerned. 3.The petitioners 2 to 4/A2 to A4, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 498(A) and 506(i)of IPC, in Crime No.27 of 2022, seek anticipatory bail.

4.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant was solemnized on 03.11.2019. After marriage, the petitioners harassed the defacto 1/3

complainant by demanding more dowry and the first petitioner is having affair with another lady. Subsequently, the defacto complainant begotten a female child on 14.08.2020 and the petitioners demanded to give the child to them and also the first petitioner took the thali from the defacto complainant. Thereafter, she went to her parents house on 14.02.2021 and After that, she was not permitted to come to the house of the first petitioner. The defacto complainant is living with her parents and the jewels are in the custody of the petitioners. Hence, the complaint. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioners 2 to 4 would submit that the first accused is the husband of the defacto complainant and the petitioners 2 to 4 are the in-laws of the defacto complainant. There was no harassment or cruelty as alleged by the prosecution.

Only with a view to harass the petitioners, a false case has been foisted against them. He would further submit that the petitioners 2 to 4 are innocents and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, they may be granted anticipatory bail.

6.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that it is a matrimonial dispute. Due to continuos harassment of the accused persons, this complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant and there is a specific allegation levelled against the petitioners 2 to 4. He would further submit that in this case, till now, six witnesses were examined and investigation is not yet completed.

7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of offence and also the facts that it is a matrimonial dispute and the petitioners 2 to 4 are only in-laws to the defacto complainant, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 2 to 4 with certain conditions. 8.Accordingly, the petitioners 2 to 4 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi, on condition that the petitioners 2 to 4 shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.

(b)the petitioners 2 to 4 shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am until further orders; 2/3

(c)the petitioners 2 to 4 shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (d)the petitioners 2 to 4 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 petitioners 2 to 4 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]; and;

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

sd/- 03/11/2022 / TRUE COPY / /11/2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, LALGUDI.

2 DO THROUGH:

THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TRICHY DISTRICT.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, LALGUDI, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI, THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1 CC to M/s.T.ANTONY ARUL RAJ, Advocate ( SR-12429[I] dated 04/11/2022 )

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.18958 of 2022 Date :03/11/2022 cp PKP/SSS/SAR-2/11.11.2022/3P/6C 3/3