Allowed

R.Edward Savaridoss v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC7 Feb 2019CRL OP(MD)/666/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused under Section 498-A IPC. Considering both parties expressed willingness to reunite, bail was released subject to strict conditions including daily reporting, identity verification, and an undertaking to attempt reconciliation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon arrest or appearance within 15 days, subject to bond, identity verification, daily reporting, reconciliation undertaking, and prohibition on tampering or absconding.

R.Edward Savaridoss Vs the Inspector of Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

Thursday, the Seventh day of February Two Thousand Nineteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRL OP(MD) No.666 of 2019

¶7

R.EDWARD SAVARIDOSS ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN

¶8

THE STATE REP.BY

¶9

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THIRUVERUMBUR, TRICHY DISTRICT.

¶10

Crime No.1 of 2019 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN Advocate

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI

¶13

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 petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Section 498 (A) IPC in Cr.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶17

2.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and the defacto complainant on 07.02.2000 out of their wedlock they have two children. The petitioner is said to have harassed the defacto complainant for demanding more dowry. Hence, the complaint.

¶18

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to rejoin with the defacto complainant.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), on instructions, would submit that the defacto complainant also ready to rejoin with the petitioner.

¶20

¶21

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering both parties come forward to rejoin, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶22

6.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 No.VI, Trichy, on condition that the petitioner 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 the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶23

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

¶24

(b) if the petitioner does not come to rejoin with the defacto complainant, then the Law Enforcing Agency is at liberty to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law;

¶25

(c)the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. , until further orders;

¶26

(d)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶27

(e)the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶28

(f)on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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

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

¶30

/ TRUE COPY /

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

¶35

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO VI, TRICHY.

¶36

2.THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TRICHY DISTRICT.

¶37

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THIRUVERUMBUR, TRICHY DISTRICT

¶38

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

¶39

+1. CC to Mr.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN Advocate SR.No.2565

¶40

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.666 of 2019 Date :07/02/2019 TK/PN/SAR-2/12.02.2019/3P/6C

¶41

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

R.Edward Savaridoss v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Edward Savaridoss 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

Periyasamy Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Abdul Majid(Deceased) Vs Rameeja Bibi (Deceased)

K. Thangadurai, S/O.Kebendran Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Jeyakumar, Vs the Inspector of Police

Santhanam Vs the Inspector of Police

Sengunthar Sangam Vs the District Collector