Allowed

Thaniyarasu, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC26 Feb 2019CRL OP(MD)/2953/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to four petitioners accused of dowry harassment and cruelty under the IPC. The court imposed conditions including regular reporting, execution of a bond with sureties, and prohibitions on tampering with evidence or absconding.

What did the court decide?

Order released on bail upon execution of bond with sureties and compliance with specific reporting and behavioral conditions under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Thaniyarasu, Vs the Inspector of Police — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

Tuesday, the Twenty Sixth day of February Two Thousand Nineteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRL OP(MD) No.2953 of 2019

¶7

1 THANIYARASU

¶8

2 VALARMATHI

¶9

3 MUTHUKUMAR

¶10

4 MENAKA ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED No. 2 to 5

¶11

¶12

THE STATE REP. BY,

¶13

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, VADAMADURAI,

¶14

DINDIGUL DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.2/2019) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶15

For Petitioners : MR.S.MUNIYANDI Advocate

¶16

For Respondent : K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI, Government Advocate(Crl. Side)

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶19

The petitioners who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 498(A), 406, 506(i) of IPC in Cr.No.2 of 2019, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶20

2.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the first accused and the defacto complainant took place on 19.05.2018 and were living happily. Thereafter the petitioners herein demanded additional dowry and harassed the defacto complainant. Hence the complaint.

¶21

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and they have nothing to do with the alleged offence. He would https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ also submit that they have not demanded any additional dowry. He would also submit that the petitioners are in-laws.

¶22

¶23

4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that investigation is pending in this case.

¶24

5.Considering the facts and circumstances and considering the fact that the petitioners herein are in-laws , 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, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Natham on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only)each 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:

¶25

(a)the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶26

(b)the first and third petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m.,until further orders and the second and fourth petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation; (c)the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶27

(d)the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶28

(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]; and;

¶29

(f)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

sd/-

26/02/2019

/ TRUE COPY /

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

¶34

¶35

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ NATHAM, DINDIGUL DISTRICT

¶36

¶37

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE DINDIGUL DISTRICT

¶38

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, VADAMADURAI, DINDIGUL DISTRICT

¶39

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to MR.S.MUNIYANDI Advocate SR.No.3782

¶40

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.2953 of 2019 Date :26/02/2019 MSI/JC/SAR 4/01.03.2019/3P-6C

¶41

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

Thaniyarasu, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thaniyarasu, 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

M. Mariya Selvam, D/O.Manuvel Vs the Inspector of Police

M. Mariya Selvam, D/O.Manuvel Vs the Inspector of Police

Sumathi Bala, Vs the Superintendent of Customs

L.Winsly Vs the Inspector of Police

Muthu Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S.Delta Treders, Vs the Branch Manager