Allowed

Mr. Jefferson Pon David v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC5 Sept 2014CRL OP(MD)/16686/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail petition arose from a matrimonial dispute where the petitioner, accused under IPC Sections 315, 498A, 494 and Dowry Prohibition Act, sought release from judicial custody. The court considered the conflicting nature of the alleged affair and issuance of notices against the complainant, granting bail with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Ordered release on bail on bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties; appearance before police daily until further orders.

Mr. Jefferson Pon David Vs the Inspector of Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Fifth day of September Two Thousand Fourteen PRESENT

¶2

The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.16686 of 2014

¶3

(*)JEFFERSON PON DAVID & JEFFERSON DAVID ... PETITIONER / 1^st ACCUSED

¶4

THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUAMRI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.22 OF 2014 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶5

For Petitioner : M/S.N.DILIP KUMAR Advocate

¶6

For Respondent : M/S.K.ANBARASAN, Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

¶7

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

¶8

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶9

The petitioner is A1 and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 27.08.2014, for the alleged offences under Sections 315, 498(A) and 494 of IPC., (*)Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.22 of 2014, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks bail.

¶10

2.The prosecution case is that the marriage between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was solemnized on 18.10.2013 and thereafter, in June 2014, the defacto complainant was intimidated by the accused to abort the child.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the petitioner as well as the defacto complainant are divorcees and as per the representation of the defacto complainant; that the earlier marriage was dissolved, the marriage between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was performed on 18.10.2013. But, subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the marriage of the defacto complainant was dissolved only on 14.03.2014. He further submitted that due to suppression of material facts and subsequent conduct of the defacto complainant, the petitioner has filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on 12.06.2014 in I.D.O.P.No.225 of 2014. But in the meanwhile, the defacto complainant lodged a false case against the petitioner as well as his mother, who is suffering from cancer, and hence the petitioner moved an application in Crl.O.P.No.10438 of 2014, seeking anticipatory bail and this Court was pleaded to grant anticipatory bail, by order dated 11.06.2014. The petitioner also moved an application in Crl.O.P.No.11113 of 2014 seeking direction to the Police to register https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the case against the defacto complainant and the same was ordered on 23.06.2014.

¶12

The learned counsel further submitted that the defacto complainant by a statement dated 25.06.2014 given to the respondent has admitted that she has received the entire jewels and other articles from the petitioner.

¶13

While so, the defacto complainant filed a case before the learned Judicial Magistrate In C.M.P.No.3264 of 2014 on 13.08.2014, seeking direction to register the case against the accused and as per the order of the learned Magistrate, the respondent has now registered the case against the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and he has not committed any offence and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2014(3) (Crl) 353 (SC) (Amesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar) , the accused need not be arrested in the case of matrimonial dispute.

¶14

Per contra, the learned counsel for the intervener submitted that the accused had intimidated the defacto complainant and also pressurized her to go for abortion, which clearly attracts Section 315 of IPC., It is further submitted that the accused had committed heinous crime and therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

¶15

Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent.

¶16

8.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, with certain conditions.

¶17

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on his 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 Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m., until further orders.

¶18

sd/05/09/2014 (*)Amended as per the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 10.09.14 and made in MP(MD)No.1 of 2014 in Crl.OP(MD)No.16686 of 2014.

¶19

/ TRUE COPY /

¶20

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶21

¶22

To be substituted the order copy already despatched.

¶23

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, NAGERCOIL. 2 -DO-THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KANYAKUMARI @ NAGERCOIL. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUAMRI DISTRICT. 4 THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE,CENTRAL JAIL, NAGERCOIL 5 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶24

+1. CC to M/S.N.DILIP KUMAR Advocate SR.No.51040 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ msm 04.09.2014 p2/7c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.16686 of 2014 PA/10.09.2014/2P/7C (IT) Date :05/09/2014

Mr. Jefferson Pon David v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Jefferson Pon David 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

Cases cited

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

Jayanthi Vs the Inspector of Police

Neelamega Amaran Vs the Sub Inspector of Police