Allowed

Jocob Jayakaran v. State Rep by

Madras HC29 Jun 2022CRL OP/1363/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a Section 498A IPC case involving allegations of refusal to accept a child, subject to standard conditions including execution of a bond, reporting to police, and non-absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail subject to execution of a bond for Rs.10,000 with two sureties and compliance with specific reporting and conduct conditions.

Jocob Jayakaran Vs State Rep by — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Wednesday, the Twenty Ninth day of June Two Thousand Twenty Two

¶3

The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶4

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.1363 of 2022

¶5

JOCOB JAYAKARAN

¶6

¶7

STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TIRUKKOILUR, VILLUPURAM DISTRICT-605 757 CRIME NO.1 OF 2022

¶8

[ RESPONDENT ]

¶9

For Petitioner : M/S K.KRISHNAN Advocate

¶10

For Respondent : M/S.A.DAMODARAN, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

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

¶12

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶13

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 498A IPC in Crime No.1 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶14

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner married the defacto complainant. Due to the wedlock, the defacto complainant got pregnant and gave birth to a child in the month of October 2017 and the said child died within 17 days. Thereafter, she gave birth to another child on 05.03.2019 and the same was informed to the petitioner. However, the petitioner refused to accept the child. Hence, the complaint.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶16

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

¶17

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that petitioner married the defacto complainant and due to the wedlock, the defacto complainant became pregnant and delivered a male child. However, the petitioner refused to accept the child. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:-

¶19

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 on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirukovilur, Villupuram District 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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

¶20

[a] the petitioner 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.

¶21

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

¶22

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

¶23

[d] the petitioner 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 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].

¶25

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

¶26

[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶27

-sd/-

¶28

29/06/2022 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY

¶29

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

¶30

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUKOVILUR, VILLUPURAM DISTRICT.

¶31

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VILLUPURAM DISTRICT (FOR INFORMATION).

¶32

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TIRUKKOILUR, VILLUPURAM DISTRICT-605 757

¶33

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶34

+1 CC to M/S K.KRISHNAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO. 10402

¶35

RW-04/07/2022

¶36

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

Jocob Jayakaran v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jocob Jayakaran 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

G.Immanuel Vs State Rep by

D.Kathiravan Vs R.Kasthuri

P.Nakkeeran Vs State Rep.by

R.Dhines Raj Vs the State Rep.by

Ajith Kumar Vs Inspector of Police

V.Subbaraj Vs M.Premakumari