Allowed

P.Krishnan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Oct 2017CRL OP(MD)/11320/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 494 and 506 IPC, imposing strict surrender and reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to posting bail within 15 days, executing a bond with sureties, and adhering to reporting and conduct conditions.

P.Krishnan Vs the Inspector of Police — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

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

¶2

Friday, the Twentieth day of October Two Thousand Seventeen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.11320 of 2015

¶6

P.KRISHNAN ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED No.1

¶7

THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TIRUMANGALAM, MADURAI DISTRICT .

¶8

(CRIME NO. 62 OF 2015) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.VANCHINATHAN Advocate

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.K.ANBARASAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶11

For Intervenor : Mr.SULTHAN BASHA, Advocate for

¶12

M/S AJMAL ASSOCIATES

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 494 and 506(i) IPC., in Crime No.62 of 2015, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant Vaijayanthi mala married the petitioner herein, out of the wedlock, the petitioner and the de-facto complainant blessed with male child on 25.11.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner had developed the relationship with one Deepa, who is arrayed as accused No.2. The second wife A2 also blessed with two male child. On 07.06.2015, the de-facto complainant has questioned the above said marriage and children, the petitioner has demanded Rs.2,00,000/- as more dowry. Aggrieved by the same, the first wife gave a complaint against the petitioner.

¶17

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has not committed any offence as alleged alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that A2 already granted anticipatory bail. Initially this Court has referred the matter for mediation, but https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ mediation could not succeed. However, this Court granted interim order that the respondent police shall not arrest the petitioner

¶18

till the mediation is over.

¶19

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State would submit that investigation is almost completed in this case. However, he made a request to direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent police as and when required.

¶20

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.00 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

¶22

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

¶23

(iii) the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation including custodial interrogation as and when required by the investigation officer;

¶24

(iv) the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail;

¶25

(v) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

sd/-

20/10/2017

/ TRUE COPY /

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

¶30

¶31

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUMANGALAM,

¶32

MADURAI

¶33

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ MADURAI

¶34

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TIRUMANGALAM, MADURAI DISTRICT

¶35

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

¶36

+1. CC to Mr.S.VANCHINATHAN Advocate SR.No.32912

¶37

JAM/26.10.17/CM-MSA/SAR 4/ 3P-6C

¶38

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11320 of 2015 Date :20/10/2017

¶39

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

P.Krishnan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Krishnan 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

Sethu Vs the Inspector of Police

Jeyakumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Manuvel Joel, Vs the Inspector of Police

Muniasamy, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Suganthi Vs the Inspector of Police

Senthil Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police