Allowed

Krishnakumar v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC13 Oct 2015CRL OP(MD)/13360/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Per the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, the Court granted anticipatory bail to five petitioners accused of dowry harassment and mental cruelty. The Court ordered release on bond of Rs. 10,000 with sureties, subject to conditions of daily police appearance for two weeks and Magistrate appearance within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties each, subject to conditions of police interrogation and Magistrate appearance.

Krishnakumar Vs the Inspector of Police — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶2

Tuesday, the Thirteenth day of October Two Thousand Fifteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.13360 & 15059 of 2015

¶6

1 KRISHNAKUMAR 2 K. NAGARAJAN 3 INDHIRA ... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 IN CRL OP(MD)NO.13360 OF 2015

¶7

1 KARTHIKEYAN 2 N.SARAVANAN ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 4 & 5 IN CRL OP(MD) NO.15059 OF 2015

¶8

STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI, THOOTHUKUDI DIST. (CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2015) (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER ORDER

¶9

OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT ON 03/08/2015) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT

¶10

IN CRL OP(MD)NO.13360 OF 2015

¶11

STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI, THOOTHUKUDI DIST.

¶12

(CRIME NO.20 OF 2015) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT IN CRL OP(MD) NO.15059 OF 2015

¶13

For Petitioner : M/S.A.SARAVANAN Advocate in both the petitions

¶14

For Respondent : MS.S.PRABHA, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶15

in both the petitions

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶18

The petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)No.13360 of 2015, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3, and the petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)No.15059 of 2015, who are arrayed as accused Nos.4 and 5, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and also Section 4 of TNPHW Act in Crime No.20 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.According to the prosecution that on 11.09.2013, the first accused married the defacto complainant and at the time of marriage, she was provided with 50 sovereigns of gold jewels, 2-3/4 sovereigns of gold

¶20

chain was given to the first accused, 3/4 sovereigns of gold ring and 1-1/2 sovereigns of gold chain and Shreedana articles for the value of Rs.1,00,000/- and thereafter, the accused started demanding more dowry and harassed the defacto complainant.

¶21

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first

¶22

accused and the defacto complainant have appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre and it was agreed that the first accused and the defacto complainant to live and on the basis of the agreement, the first accused has taken a house for rent at 196, Periyar Nagar, Arakonam Road, Thiruthani and the first petitioner is ready to live with the defacto complainant.

¶23

4.The learned counsel for the defacto complainant appeared before

¶24

this Court in the last hearing, but, there is no representation today.

¶25

5.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side).

¶26

6.Considering the facts and circumstances and the affidavit filed by the first petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi and on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for alike sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the first petitionerA.1 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.13360 of 2015 shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation and the others petitioners A2 to A5 shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the conditions stiputlated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.

¶27

7.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 petitions for anticipatory bail stand dismissed.

sd/-

13/10/2015

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶32

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶33

Madurai - 625 023.

¶34

¶35

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I,THOOTHUKUDI. 2 DO THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THOOTHUKUDI. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶36

ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PUDUKOTTAI, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

¶37

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶38

+1.CC to M/S.A.SARAVANAN Advocate SR.No.61071 IN CRL.O.P(MD)NO.13360/2015 +1.CC to M/S.A.SARAVANAN Advocate SR.No.61070 IN CRL.O.P(MD)NO.15059/2015

¶39

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

¶40

NS/AAL-MPA/SAR II/15.10.2015 : 2P/7C

Krishnakumar v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnakumar 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

Ashok Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

N.Abdul Samad, Vs the Inspector of Police

Baskaran, Vs the Inspector of Police

L. Muthaiah Vs the Inspector of Police

Veraiah Vs the Inspector of Police

Muthaaru Vs the Inspector of Police