Allowed

B.Praveenkumar v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC24 Nov 2020CRL OP(MD)/10397/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners accused of dowry harassment and cruelty. Bail is conditional on execution of a bond, appearance at mediation, daily police report by the first accused, and no tampering with evidence or absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered released on bail upon execution of bond with sureties and compliance with specified conditions including mediation appearance and police reporting.

B.Praveenkumar Vs The Inspector of Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CRL OP(MD).No.10397 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 24/11/2020

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶7

CRL OP(MD).No.10397 of 2020

¶8

1.B.Praveenkumar 2.N.Balamurugan 3.B.Valarmathy

¶9

... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2 & 3

¶10

¶11

The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Samayanallur, Madurai District. Crime No.14 of 2020.

¶12

... Respondent/Complainant

¶13

For Petitioners: Mr.M.Sankar, Advocate.

¶14

For Respondent : Mrs.M.Ananthadevi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

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

¶16

PRAYER :-

¶17

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.14 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent Police.

¶18

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶19

The petitioners, who are arrayed as A1, A2 & A3, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 498(A), 406, 294(b), 506(ii) IPC., and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, in Crime No.14 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶20

2.The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant. After marriage, the first petitioner along with other accused persons have demanded dowry and also harassed the defacto complainant. Hence, the case has been registered.

¶21

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

¶22

1/3

¶23

CRL OP(MD).No.10397 of 2020

¶24

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case.

¶25

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), appearing for the respondent police strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners

¶26

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶27

6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or their appearance, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai District, 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 to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶28

(a)the first petitioner and the defacto complainant are directed to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to this Bench on 04.12.2020. If the first petitioner is failed to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to this Bench, the anticipatory bail granted to the first petitioner shall stand automatically cancelled;

¶29

(b)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;

¶30

(c)the first petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. without fail, for a period of four weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation and the second and third petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation;

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

(f)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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble

¶34

2/3

¶35

CRL OP(MD).No.10397 of 2020

¶36

Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and;

¶37

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

¶38

sd/24/11/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶39

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶40

TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VADIPATTI, MADURAI DISTRICT. 2.DO THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI DISTRICT. 3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, SAMAYANALLUR, MADURAI DISTRICT. 4.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶41

COPY TO: THE CO-ORDINATOR, MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶42

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.10397 of 2020 Date :24/11/2020

¶43

vsd AE/RSK/SAR-II (30.11.2020) 3P / 6C

¶44

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

¶45

3/3

B.Praveenkumar v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Praveenkumar 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

Maideen Vs The Inspector of Police

R.Muthukrishnan Vs The Inspector of Police

Johnson Vs The Inspector of Police

Golam Mortoja Vs State by

Dhandapani Vs the Inspector of Police

Arikrihnan Vs State Rep.by