Allowed

P.Kathirvel v. State Rep by

Madras HC6 Oct 2020CRL OP/15297/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to three petitioners apprehending arrest under Section 366 IPC in a case involving alleged kidnapping to force marriage. The court imposed conditions including surrender within 15 days and reporting to police.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to bond execution, reporting to police, prohibition on tampering, and other specific conditions of surrender and conduct.

P.Kathirvel Vs State Rep by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.OP.No.15297 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.10.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶6

Crl.OP.No.15297 of 2020
1. P.Kathirvel
S/o. Perumal
2. R.Perumal
S/o. Ramasamy
3. M.Kalaiselvi
W/o. Perumal ... Petitioners
Vs.
The State represented by
The Inspector of police,
Komarapalayam Police Station,
Namakkal District.
Crime No.1242 of 2020 ... Respondent

¶7

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.1242 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

¶8

Page 1 of 6

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

Crl.OP.No.15297 of 2020

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Vijayaragavan For Respondent : Mr.M. Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

O R D E R (This case has been heard through video conference)

¶13

The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences publishable under Section 366 of IPC in Crime No.1242 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶14

The case of the prosecution, as per the defacto complainant

¶15

viz., Dhanusri is that the petitioner had one side love with her and thereafter, the accused persons took her to temple and demanded to marry the first petitioner. Hence the complaint.

¶16

The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that

¶17

the petitioners and the defacto complainant are close relatives and that

¶18

Page 2 of 6

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶20

Crl.OP.No.15297 of 2020

¶21

the defacto complainant was ready and willing to marry the first petitioner. However, it was objected by the father of the defacto complainant and thereby on instigation of the father of the defacto complainant, a false case has been given. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶22

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioners are relatives of the defacto complainant and they have kidnapped and compelled her to marry the first petitioner. However, no marriage has taken place. Hence, he opposed to grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶23

Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of

¶24

the case and also the submissions of the learned counsel, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions;

¶25

Page 3 of 6

¶26

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶27

Crl.OP.No.15297 of 2020

¶28

Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on

¶29

bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the copy of this order is made ready, 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

¶30

the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Komarapalayam failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

¶31

[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

¶32

[b] the first petitioner shall report before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter every Monday at 10.30 am., until further orders. Second and third petitioner shall report before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required.

¶33

[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶34

Page 4 of 6

¶35

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶36

Crl.OP.No.15297 of 2020

¶37

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation

¶38

or trial.

¶39

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate 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 himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala

¶40

[(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

¶41

[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be
registered under Section 229A IPC.
7. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition
is ordered.
06.10.2020
dh
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate,
Komarapalayam.

¶42

The Inspector of police, Komarapalayam Police Station, Namakkal District.

¶43

The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶44

Page 5 of 6

¶45

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶46

Crl.OP.No.15297 of 2020

¶47

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J

¶48

¶49

Crl.OP.No. 15297 of 2020
06.10.2020

¶50

Page 6 of 6

¶51

http://www.judis.nic.in

P.Kathirvel v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Kathirvel v. State Rep by

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

Murugan Vs the State Rep.by

Aravinth Vs the State Rep by

Archana Padmakumar Vs the State, Represented by

S.Balaji Vs State Rep. by

Kathirvel Vs State Rep by

K.Sivasakthi Vs the State Rep by