Allowed

Mohanaraja v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC28 Jun 2022CRL OP/4146/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to three petitioners facing arrest under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for alleged dowry demand and cruelty. The court imposed strict conditions including regular reporting and a separate surety bond.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with conditions including execution of a separate surety bond of Rs.10,000/-, daily reporting by the first petitioner, and prohibition on absconding.

Mohanaraja Vs the Inspector of Police — Corruption | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Twenty Eighth day of June Two Thousand Twenty Two

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.4146 of 2021

¶7

1 MOHANARAJA [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ]

2 NARAYANASAMY

3 VASANTHAKUMARI

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE [ RESPONDENT ] ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, VILLIANOUR, PUDUCHERRY. CR.NO.2 OF 2021

¶12

For Petitioner : M/S.S.SARAVANAKUMAR Advocate

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.V.Balamurugane Public Prosecutor for Pondicherry

¶14

For Intervenor : M/S M.SENTHAMIZH SELVAN Advocate

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶17

The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 294(b), 354 (A)(1)(ii), 354(D)(1)(i) of IPC r/w. Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in Crime No.2 of 2021, seek anticipatory bail.

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant and the petitioners 2 & 3 are her in-laws. It is alleged that the petitioners had demanded dowry and made cruelty towards the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶20

The learned Public Prosecutor (Pondy) would submit that the petitioners harassed the defacto complainant by demanding dowry.

¶21

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

¶22

Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶23

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

¶24

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate 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:

¶25

[a] the petitioners 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.

¶26

[b] the first 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. The second and third petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

¶27

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

¶28

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶29

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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].

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

TO 1 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE PONDICHERRY 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, VILLIANOUR, PUDUCHERRY. 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PUDUCHERRY

¶35

CC to M/S.S.SARAVANAKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges Sr.10257

¶36

CRL OP.4146/2021 Date :28/06/2022 RVR 30/06/2022

¶37

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

Mohanaraja v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanaraja v. the Inspector of Police

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

M.Murugan Vs Sri Gokulam Chit and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd.

S.Anandhan Vs R.Suguna

S.Anandhan Vs R.Suguna

G.Immanuel Vs State Rep by

D.Kathiravan Vs R.Kasthuri

P.Nakkeeran Vs State Rep.by