Jai Fredaric 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 JAI FREDARIC ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED No.1 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.
CRIME NO.14/2023.
... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT LYDIA JEYAKODI KALAYARASI ... INTERVENING PETITIONER/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT in CRL MP(MD)No.611 of 2024 in CRL OP(MD)No.23605 of 2023 For Petitioner : M/S.SAKTHI RAO.G Advocate For Respondent : Mr.P.KOTTAICHAMY, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervener : Mr.N.BALASUBRAMANIAN, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. PRAYER:
FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.14/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE.
1/4
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 498(A), 294(b) and 506(i) IPC , in Crime No.14 of 2023, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the wife of the petitioner and they have two female children. The petitioner is having illegal contact with the second accused, due to which, some family dispute arose between the petitioner and the defacto complainant and on 11.12.2023, the petitioner and the second accused attacked the defacto complainant and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence this complaint.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that this Court has referred the matter to the Mediation for amicable settlement between the parties, however, the Mediation failed. But, no serious allegation was made against the petitioner. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 2/4
4. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submits that the defacto complainant is the wife of the petitioner, however, he developed illegal intimacy with the second accused and thereby, the petitioner and the second accused attacked the defacto complainant and threatened her with dire consequences. 5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent Police submitted that the investigation is yet to be completed.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the seriousness of allegation levelled against the petitioner that the petitioner in collusion with the second accused attacked the defacto complainant and threatened her, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 28/02/2024 / TRUE COPY / /03/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
SSB 3/4
TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.
2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN Date :28/02/2024 SS/GS/SAR- /14/03/2024/4P/3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4