Petitioner sought bail cancellation for an accused alleging threats via phone calls. The court accepted the accused’s affidavit undertaking not to threaten witnesses or tamper with evidence and closed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.No.7733 of 2022
Crl.O.P.No.7733 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI , J.
The de facto complainant in Crime No.418 of 2021 has filed the present petition before this Court for cancellation of bail granted by this Court to the 3rd respondent/2nd accused, in Crl.O.P.No.14694 of 2021, vide order dated 18.08.2021, on the ground that the 3rd respondent/accused has violated the conditions imposed by this Court and is continuously threatening the petitioner and her daughter, by way of phone calls.
2.The main allegation and the apprehension of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent/accused made a call to the daughter of the petitioner, who is in U.S.A., and threatened her. Therefore, this Court, on an earlier occasion, issued a direction to the Investigating Officer to investigate into the same and file a report. Pursuant to the same, today, a report has been filed by the Inspector of Police, Cheyyar Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District, dated 22.08.2022, wherein, at Para No.13, it is stated that the CDR was analyzed for the period from 21st August, 2021 to 18th August, 2022, in respect of the petitioner's mobile numbers, and the accused did not call the petitioner/ de facto complainant from his
Page 1 of 4
Crl.O.P.No.7733 of 2022
mobile number, and the CDR was analyzed against the mobile number of the accused for the period from 29th March, 2022 to 18th August, 2022, and the accused did not make a call either to the petitioner/ de facto complainant or to the petitioner's daughter.
3.However, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent/accused submitted that it is true that the 3rd respondent/accused made a call along with the petitioner's vendor, however, it was prior to the complaint made by the petitioner. He would further submit that, after the petitioner's complaint, the 3rd respondent/accused has not made any call either to the petitioner or to the petitioner's daughter.
4.Moreover, the 3rd respondent/accused has filed an affidavit, dated 22.08.2022, wherein, at Para No.8, he has given an undertaking that he will not involve in any threatening either to the petitioner or the petitioner's daughter and he will not tamper any evidence and he would appear before the concerned trial Court without fail and defend his case.
Page 2 of 4
Crl.O.P.No.7733 of 2022
recording the aforesaid undertaking given by him, this petition for cancellation of bail, is closed.
23.08.2022
mkn
Page 3 of 4
Crl.O.P.No.7733 of 2022
M. DHANDAPANI , J.
mkn
Crl.O.P.No.7733 of 2022
23.08.2022
Page 4 of 4
The De Facto Complainant
The 3rd Respondent/Accused
M. DHANDAPANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
