Allowed

Naveen Kumar v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC17 Feb 2015CRL OP(MD)/14140/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners charged with 498(A), 294(b), 506 IPC and Dowry Act offences. The Court imposed strict conditions including a mandatory undertaking not to remarry before obtaining a divorce decree and reporting to authorities.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail subject to undertaking not to remarry until divorce decree and strict reporting conditions.

Naveen Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

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

¶2

Tuesday, the Seventeenth day of February Two Thousand Fifteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON`BLE MR JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.14140 of 2014

¶6

1 NAVEEN KUMAR

¶7

2 SHANMUGAM

¶8

3 VIJAYALAKSHMI

¶9

4 THANIKASALAM 5 KANAKA ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN

¶10

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, SRIRANGAM, TRICHY DISTRICT. CR. NO. NOT KNOWN OF 2014. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶11

For Petitioner : M/S.S.KARTHICK Advocate

¶12

For Respondent : MR.P.KANNITHEVAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶13

For Intervenor : MR.A.HARIHARAN, Advocate

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶16

Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police in Crime No.not known of 2014, on the file of the respondent police for offences under Sections 498(A), 294(b) and 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of TamilNadu Dowry Prohibition Act, the petitioners are now before this Court seeking Anticipatory Bail.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the intervenor and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent.

¶18

Earlier the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre and the Mediation Centre has sent a failure report dated 23.01.2015.

¶19

Since only petition enquiry is pending, this Court granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners on 02.02.2015.

¶20

Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is always ready to hand over the ornaments, jewelry and articles of the de-facto complainant, but the de-facto complainant, who does not want to receive the same.

¶21

The learned counsel for the de-facto complainant concurred with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submits that the de-facto complainant is not taking her things from the petitioner, because she still hopes that there will be a reunion. The only apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the de-facto

¶22

complainant is that the first petitioner wants to hand over all the articles as early as possible and get remarried.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner is not in a hurry to get remarriage and that he would get married only after civil Court decree is obtained. If that is so, he is directed to file an undertaking to that effect.

¶24

Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to

¶25

grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, but with conditions.

¶26

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichy, on executing a separate 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that,

¶27

(a) at the time of furnishing sureties, the first petitioner shall give an undertaking before the Magistrate that he will not remarry until the decree of divorce is obtained from the competent Court.

¶28

(b) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

¶29

[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶30

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶31

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners 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].

¶32

It is seen from the case records that this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15778 of 2014 dated 09.02.2015, has directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police to monitor the petition enquiry. In compliance with the order of this Court, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, should monitor the petition enquiry and if there is no case made out against the petitioners, he may close the investigation. If there is a case made out, he may order registration of a regular FIR and this order of anticipatory bail will enure to the benefit of the petitioners and they need not apply again for anticipatory bail.

¶33

/ TRUE COPY /

¶34

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶35

Madurai - 625 023.

¶36

¶37

THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.III TRICHY. 2. -DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TRICHY. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, SRIRANGAM, TRICHY DISTRICT. 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S.S.KARTHICK Advocate SR.No. 7394 SR : 24.02.2015 : 3P/6C ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14140 of 2014 Date :17/02/2015

¶38

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

Naveen Kumar v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Kumar 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 Inspector of Police

Kasinathan Vs the Inspector of Police

S.N.Sabarimalai Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Mariyaselvam Vs the Inspector of Police

Sumathi Vs the Inspector of Police

Marisamy Vs the Inspector of Police