Allowed

Ramesh v. State Rep by

Madras HC12 Nov 2021CRL OP/20255/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a matrimonial dispute involving allegations of assault and harassment, the Madras High Court referred the parties to mediation before granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C., subject to strict reporting and non-tampering conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail subject to reporting daily for four weeks, executing a bond with sureties, and complying with non-tampering conditions before the Judicial Magistrate.

Ramesh Vs State Rep by — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Friday, the Twelfth day of November Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V. THAMILSELVI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.20255 of 2021

¶7

RAMESH [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ETHAPUR POLICE STATION, SALEM DISTRICT. CRIME NO.492 OF 2021

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S. E.KANNADASAN Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : MR.N.S.SUGANTHAN, Counsel for Government Advocate,

¶12

(Crl.Side)

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 323, 324, 354, 506(i) of IPC in Cr.No.492 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶16

2.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and the defacto complainant on 14.10.2021 and there was a misunderstanding arose between them, they lived separately. It is further alleged that the petitioner and the defacto complainant went to his relatives house and there, the petitioner picked up a quarrel with the defacto complainant and beaten her in the presence of his relative and hence she left the house and went to her parents house and preferred a complaint before the respondent police against the petitioner.

¶17

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

¶18

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He always ready to live with her and pray for mediation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶19

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submits that due to the harassment made by the petitioner and also threatened her to leave the matrimonial home. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶20

In view of the facts and considering the nature of the family issue between the parties, this Court referred the matter to Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Salem or Legal Service Authority, Salem.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submissions made by both counsel, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶22

6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory 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.1, Attur 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 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;

¶24

(b)the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter as and required for interrogation;

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(e)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 anticipatory bail by

¶28

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

¶29

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;

¶30

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

¶31

-sd/12/11/2021 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY

¶32

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

¶33

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.I, ATTUR, SALEM DISTRICT. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SALEM DISTRICT. [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ETHAPUR POLICE STATION, SALEM DISTRICT. 5 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, TAMILNADU MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE, HIGH COURT,MADRAS COPY TO 1 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, THE MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE, SALEM. 2 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, SALEM. +1 CC to M/S. E.KANNADASAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.12731 CRL OP.20255/2021 Date :12/11/2021 RW 19/11/2021

¶34

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

Ramesh v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmipathy Vs State Rep by

Vedanayagam Vs State Rep by

S.Palanisamy Vs State Rep by

Rajadurai Vs State Rep by

Subramanian Vs Inspector of Police

C.Manivannan Vs State by