Allowed

Raj v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC14 Oct 2015CRL OP(MD)/17711/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court, relying on the precedent set forth in Ramchandra Naik vs. State of Maharashtra, granted anticipatory bail to the appellant apprehending arrest under sections 120 B, 147, 294 B, 494, 498 A and 506 IPC, directed his surrender to the Magistrate, and imposed conditions including daily reporting to police.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on surrendering a bond for Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties each for appearing before the Magistrate and police as directed.

Raj Vs the Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

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

¶2

Wednesday, the Fourteenth day of October Two Thousand Fifteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.17711 of 2015

¶6

RAJ ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED

¶7

THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE JEEYAPURAM ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT. (CRIME NO. 11 OF 2015) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶8

For Petitioner : M/S M.PITCHAI MUTHU Advocate

¶9

For Respondent : M/S.S.Prabha Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶12

The petitioner, who is arrayed as A1, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 120(b), 147, 294(b), 494, 498(A) and 506(i) r/w 109 of I.P.C. in Crime No.11 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶13

2.According to the prosecution that the petitioner/A1 had married the de-facto complainant in the year 2009 and after the marriage, she was harassed by the accused demanding additional dowry.

¶14

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and the de-facto complainant has falsely implicated all the family members of the petitioner in this case. It is further submitted that due to cruelty caused by the de-facto complainant, the petitioner/A1filed H.M.O.P.No.121 of 2010 before the Sub-Court, Trichy for divorce and thereafter, the de-facto complainant has filed H.M.O.P.o.3895 of 2010 before the Family Court, Chennai for restitution of conjugal rights and another case filed by the de-facto complainant seeking maintenance in M.C.No.485 of 2010 and they are pending.

¶15

4.It is further submitted that the other co-accused viz., A2 to A12 were granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.17485 and 14952 of 2015.

¶16

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

¶17

5.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the State.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶19

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur, Trichy District and on 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 petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. for period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

¶20

The petitioner 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/14/10/2015

¶22

/ TRUE COPY /

¶23

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO

¶24

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THURAIYUR. 2 DO THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TRICHY.

¶25

3 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶26

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE JEEYAPURAM ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT.

¶27

+1. CC to M/S M.PITCHAI MUTHU Advocate SR.No. 61021.

¶28

TS/15.10.2015/2P - 6C SK-SKN/SAR -I

¶29

ORDER IN

¶30

CRL OP(MD) No.17711 of 2015

¶31

Date :14/10/2015

¶32

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

Raj v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj 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

L. Muthaiah Vs the Inspector of Police

Veraiah Vs the Inspector of Police

Muthaaru Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Ashok Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

A. Abubakkar Vs the Inspector of Police

Senthil Nathan Vs the Insepector of Police