Allowed

Jayanthi v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC5 Sept 2014CRL OP(MD)/13840/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to five petitioners accused under Section 366 IPC relating to a matrimonial dispute where the wife allegedly left her matrimonial home. Bail was conditioned on execution of bond, appearance before magistrate within 15 days, and cooperation with police.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties, appearance before magistrate within 15 days, and appearing before police as required.

Jayanthi Vs the Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Friday, the Fifth day of September Two Thousand Fourteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶6

CRL OP(MD) No.13840 of 2014

¶7

1 JAYANTHI 2 SETHU 3 MANJULA 4 SURESH 5 VAMSI @ THANGATHURAI ... PETITIONER(S) / ACCUSED 1,3 to 6

¶8

¶9

THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KARUPPAYURANI POLICE STATION, MADURAI, CR.NO.206/2014 ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S.S.M.A.JINNAH Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.K.Anbarasan Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶12

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶13

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioners, who are arrayed as A1, A3 to A6, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 366 of I.P.C. in Crime No.206 of 2014 on the file of the respondent Police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

¶15

2.The de facto complainant one Saundararajan, lodged a complaint alleging that his son married one Revathi on 12.03.2014. Whileso, on 18.04.2014 his daughter-in-law left the matrimonial home.

¶16

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the daughterin-law of the de facto complainant is produced before this Court in H.C.P. (MD)No.555 of 2014 and her statement was also recorded. The alleged victim has stated that she was not interested to go along with the de facto complainant or nor the petitioner therein and on the basis of the statement the Habeas Corpus petition is closed.

¶17

4.The learned Government Advocate submitted (Crl.Side) that the victim was secured on 19.08.2014 and other accused were granted anticipatory bail.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on

¶19

bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai and on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as and when required. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

¶20

The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

¶21

sd/-

¶22

05/09/2014

¶23

/ TRUE COPY /

¶24

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶25

¶26

THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, MADURAI.

¶27

THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADRUAI.

¶28

3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶29

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

¶30

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶31

KARUPPAYURANI POLICE STATION, MADURAI,

TS/10.09.2014/2P-5C

ORDER

CRL OP(MD) No.13840 of 2014

¶36

Date :05/09/2014

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Jayanthi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayanthi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Natarajan Vs the Inspector of Police

K. Jeyaprakash Vs the Inspector of Police

C.Selvam Vs the Inspector of Police

Mr. Jefferson Pon David Vs the Inspector of Police

Neelamega Amaran Vs the Sub Inspector of Police