Allowed

Alaguraja v. State by

Madras HC4 Jan 2022CRL OP/26044/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to three petitioners in a matrimonial dispute involving dowry harassment and cruelty, imposing conditions including monthly maintenance payments, police reporting, and execution of bonds despite their prior non-compliance with a court order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest, subject to conditions including payment of maintenance, reporting to police, and execution of bonds with two sureties each.

Alaguraja Vs State by — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 04.01.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.26044 of 2021

¶6

1.Alaguraja .. Petitioners 2.Chandiraguru 3.Poopathi

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State represented by ...Respondent The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Tiruppur South Tiruppur District. Cr.No.3 of 2020.

¶9

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.3 of 2020 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.M.S.Charles

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokula Krishnan Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498 (A) and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 2002 in Crime No.3 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶14

2.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage was performed between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant viz., Illam Malathi on 17.05.2017, after their marriage the defacto complainant had one female child and thereafter, the petitioners had demanded more dowry from the defacto complainant and also harassed her for the same. The further allegation is that the first petitioner abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and attacked her in a drunken mood. Hence, the complaint.

¶15

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

¶16

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioners by this Court vide order dated 08.12.2020 in Crl.O.P.No.18323 of 2020. Thereafter, due to Covid – 19 pandemic, the petitioners were not able to comply with the orders. Hence, the present anticipatory bail petition.

¶17

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) raised objection stated that the petitioners have not complied the order issued by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.18323 of 2020 dated 08.12.2020.

¶18

It appears that the first petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant and she is having one female child, he agreed to maintain her hence this Court directs the first petitioner to pay sum of Rs.5,000/- as maintenance to the defacto complainant during the first working day of every month, until the modification made by the Court of law.

¶19

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 petitioners.

¶20

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days after lifting of lockdown or the commencement of the Court's normal functioning whichever is earlier, before the learned Judicial Magistrate – II, Thiruppur, on condition that the petitioners shall execute separate bonds for a sum of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each , 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:

¶21

[a] the 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;

¶22

[b] the first petitioner shall report before the respondent police on Wednesday at 10.30p.m for a period of four weeks and thereafter as and when required for an interrogation; the second and third petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for an interrogation;

¶23

[ c ] the petitioner shall pay sum of Rs.5,000/- as maintenance to the defacto complainant during the first working day of every month, until the modification made by the Court of law;

¶24

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

¶25

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶26

[e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶27

[f] 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 has been imposed and the petitioner is 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;

¶28

[g] if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC;

¶29

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

¶30

TRUE COPY

¶31

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

¶32

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.II, THIRUPPUR.

¶33

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THIRUPPUR. [FOR INFORMATION]

¶34

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶35

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TIRUPPUR SOUTH, TIRUPPUR DISTRICT.

¶36

CC to M/S M.S.CHARLES Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶37

CRL OP.26044/2021

¶38

Date :04/01/2022 TA-10/01/2022

¶39

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

Alaguraja v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alaguraja v. State 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

Eswaran Vs the State Rep by

D.Tamilarasan Vs State Rep. by

Balasundaram Vs State Rep by

P.Sasikala Vs S.Alexander

R.Dhanalakshmi Vs State Rep by

Thangavel Vs State Rep by