Partly allowed

V.Sathishbabu v. State Rep by

Madras HC7 Oct 2021CRL OP/18972/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Court declined anticipatory bail for the first petitioner facing accusations of dowry harassment and cruelty but granted it to the remaining three petitioners (in-laws) on bonded bail with specific reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th petitioners subject to bond execution, daily reporting for one petitioner, and standard bail conditions; petition for 1st petitioner dismissed.

V.Sathishbabu Vs State Rep by — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Thursday, the Seventh day of October Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.18972 of 2021

¶7

V.SATHISH BABU [ PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ] 2. V.KOUSALYA 3. S.JAYABARATHI 4. V.SASIDHARAN

¶8

¶9

STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KILPAUK, CHENNAI. CRIME NO.15/2021.

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S.A.SARAVANAN, Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : M/S.C.E.PRATAP, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioners, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 498A, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC 1860 in Crime No.13 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶15

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners demanded dowry and ill treated the defacto complainant. It is further alleged that the first petitioner is a divorcee who got child aged about 13 years through first marriage and he is aged 38, but the respondent has suppressed all the above facts. Hence, the complaint.

¶16

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits the petitioners are no way connected with the offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶17

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that there was a matrimonial dispute between the first petitioner and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ defacto complainant, the present complaint has been filed.

¶18

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both counsel, there is a serious allegations made against the first petitioner this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 1^st petitioner. With regard to 2^nd , 3^rd and 4^th petitioners, being the in-laws of the defacto complainant and there is no serious allegations made against them, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to 2^nd , 3^rd and 4^th petitioners.

¶19

6.Accordingly, the 2^nd , 3^rd and 4^th 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 Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai-08 on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute bonds 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:

¶20

(a) the 2^nd , 3^rd and 4^th petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Court concerned may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶21

(b) the 4^th petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation and 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation;

¶22

¶23

(d) the 2^nd , 3^rd and 4^th petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶24

(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the 2^nd , 3^rd and 4^th petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the 2^nd , 3^rd and 4^th petitioners are 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;

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition in respect of the first petitioner stands dismissed. The Criminal Original Petition in respect of the the 2^nd , 3^rd and 4^th petitioners stands ordered.

¶28

-sd/-

¶29

07/10/2021

¶30

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶31

TRUE COPY

¶32

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶33

¶34

1 THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, ADDITIONAL MAHILA COURT, EGMORE, CHENNAI-08.

¶35

2 THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, EGMORE, CHENNAI. [FOR INFORMATION]

¶36

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶37

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KILPAUK, CHENNAI.

¶38

+1 CC to M/S.A.SARAVANAN, Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.11131

CRL OP.18972/2021

Date :07/10/2021

TA-20/10/2021

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

V.Sathishbabu v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Sathishbabu 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

Singravelan @ Singaravadivelan Vs State Rep by

S.Ezhumalai Vs the State Rep by

Saravanan Vs State Rep by

O.Venkatachalapathy Vs G.Sarojini

E.Rangarajan Vs State Rep.by

G.S.Rajesh Vs State Rep by