Allowed

George Rex v. the Insepector of Police

Madras HC25 Jul 2016CRL OP(MD)/20898/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to five accused persons charged with offences under Section 498A IPC for alleged dowry harassment. Based on a representation of a settlement, the Court imposed conditions including daily reporting for the primary accused, execution of bail bonds, and a penalty for tampering or absconding. The police were directed to report on com

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to petitioners subject to conditions of posting bond, daily reporting for primary accused, and not tampering with evidence or witnesses.

George Rex Vs the Insepector of Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

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

¶2

Monday, the Twenty Fifth day of July Two Thousand Sixteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.20898 of 2015

¶6

1 GEORGE REX

¶7

2 A. MARIA DASON@ A.M. DASON

¶8

3 M. CELESTIN

¶9

4 M. ANITHA MARY 5 M. SUSMITHA@ SUMI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED (A1 TO A5)

¶10

STATE REB.BY

¶11

THE INSEPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TUTICORIN DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶12

For Petitioner : M/S T.CIBICHAKRABORTHY Advocate

¶13

For Respondent : M/S.P.KANNITHEVAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶16

The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 5, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) of IPC r/w 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.24 of 2015, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

¶17

2.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the first petitioner and the de-facto complainant was solemnized on 05.09.2012. A female child was born in the wedlock on 11.06.2013. The petitioners demanded more dowry after the marriage and hence, the de-facto complainant has given a complaint to the respondent police and the same has been registered in Crime No.24 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) of IPC r/w 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶18

3.It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the intervenor that both the petitioners and the defacto complainant compromised the matter and entered into settlement.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent polcie.

¶20

5.In view of the above submissions, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin, on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute 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 respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶21

(i) the first petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation and the petitioners 2 to 5 shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

¶22

(ii)the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶23

(iii)the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶24

(iv)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].

¶25

6.The Inspector of Police concerned is directed to send a compliance report to the office of the learned Government Advocate, as to whether the petitioners are complying with the conditions or not.

¶26

sd/25/07/2016 / TRUE COPY /

¶27

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶28

¶29

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,NO.I, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 DO THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

¶31

3 THE INSEPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TUTICORIN DISTRICT.

¶32

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

¶33

+1CC to M/S.T.Cibi Chakraborthy, Advocate, SR.No. 39476 1CC TO MR C.T. PERUMAL ADVOCATE SR:39084 1CC TO MR. CIBI CHAKRABORTHY ADVOCATE SR:31075 1CC TO MR. C.T. PERUMAL ADVOCATE SR: 39085

¶34

SDR/SKS-RR/SAR III/29.07.2016/3P/9C

¶35

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

George Rex v. the Insepector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George Rex v. the Insepector 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

M.Riyas @ Riyas Ahamad, Vs the Inspector of Police

Sudalaimuthu @ Muthusamy, Vs the Inspector of Police

Sankar Vs the Inspector of Police

V.Dinesh Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Shanmuga Priya Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Amuthan Vs the Inspector of Police