Allowed

R.Dhines Raj v. the State Rep.by

Madras HC29 Jun 2022CRL OP/1684/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, accused of matrimonial offences including dowry harassment, was granted bail subject to strict conditions regarding reporting, bonding, and non-tampering with evidence, citing Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail with conditions: bond of Rs.10,000, daily reporting for two weeks, and prohibition on tampering or absconding.

R.Dhines Raj Vs the State Rep.by — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.1684 of 2020

¶7

R.DHINESH RAJ [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

1 THE STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENTS ] STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, VILLIYANUR, PONDICHERRY STATE CRIME NO.5 OF 2019.

¶10

2 SREEMATHY

¶11

For Petitioner : M/S.M.PALANIVEL Advocate

¶12

For 1^st Respondent : MR.V.BALAMURUGANE, Public Prosecutor

¶13

for Puducherry

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶16

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 324, 406, 294(b), 120(B), 506(ii) of IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC in Crime No. 5 of 2019, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶17

The case of the prosecution is that there was a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, as a result of which, the petitioner had demanded dowry and harassed the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that A1 is the husband of the defacto complainant and had demanded dowry and harassed the defacto complainant. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶21

Considering the above fact and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶22

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 is made ready, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry, 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:

¶23

[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.

¶24

[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.

¶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 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].

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

-sd/-

¶31

29/06/2022

¶32

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

¶33

TRUE COPY

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

1 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE PUDUCHERRY

¶37

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, VILLIYANUR, PONDICHERRY STATE.

¶38

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶39

PUDUCHERRY.

¶40

+1 CC to M/S.M.PALANIVEL Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.10340

¶41

CRL OP.1684/2020

¶42

Date :29/06/2022 JPA 04/07/2022

¶43

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

R.Dhines Raj v. the State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Dhines Raj v. the 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

Jocob Jayakaran Vs State Rep by

Ajith Kumar Vs Inspector of Police

V.Subbaraj Vs M.Premakumari