Allowed

Ranjitha v. State Rep by

Madras HC17 Nov 2021CRL OP/20335/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Original Petition under Section 438 CrPC granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner facing charges under Sections 498A, 506 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court imposed strict conditions including daily police reporting, execution of a bond with sureties, and prohibitions on tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with conditions to report to police, execute a bond with sureties, and refrain from tampering with evidence or absconding.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 17.11.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTIC E T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.20335 of 2021

¶6

Ranjitha ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Tamil Nadu ... Respondent Rep. by The Inspector of Police, G-10, Anaicut Police Station, Chengalpattu District. Cr.No.257 of 2021.

¶9

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.257 of 2021 on the file of the respondent.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Magesh Kumar

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.N.S.Suganthan Government Advocate (Crl. side)

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 498(A), 506 (i) of IPC r/w Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.257 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶14

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the sister in law of the deceased. The petitioner's brother has got married to the defacto complainant on 03.06.2020. After marriage, the petitioner's family harassed the deceased and demanded additional dowry. Hence, the deceased became upset and committed suicide by hanging herself. Hence, the defacto complainant filed a complaint before the respondent police, thereafter the respondent police registered a case against the petitioner.

¶15

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and the defacto complainant has lodged a false complaint against her. Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner.

¶16

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that the investigation is yet to be completed. He would further state that there is a demand for dowry by the petitioner. Hence he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that there is no specific overt act as against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner on certain conditions.

¶18

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, Cheyyur, 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:

¶19

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

¶20

(b)the 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;

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(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 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;

¶24

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

¶25

-sd/-

¶26

17/11/2021

¶27

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

¶28

TRUE COPY

¶29

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶30

¶31

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, CHEYYUR, KANCHEEPURAM.

¶32

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CHENGALPATTU. [FOR INFORMATION]

¶33

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶34

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, G-10, ANAICUT POLICE STATION, CHENGALPATTU DISTRICT.

¶35

CC to M/S. G.MAGESH KUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶36

Date :17/11/2021

¶37

TA-23/11/2021

¶38

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

Ranjitha v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjitha 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

Mohankumar Vs the State Rep.by

Kalanidhi Gunasekaran Vs State Rep by

Chandiran Vs State Rep by

Samuel @ Velmurugan Vs State Rep.by

E.Hariharan Vs State Rep. by

R.Akash @Jeevarasan Vs State Rep by