Allowed

Rajkumar v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC15 Jul 2022CRL OP(MD)/10769/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to four accused persons facing charges under Sections 498A and 506(i) of IPC alleging dowry harassment. The court imposed conditions including posting a bond, producing sureties, and appearing before the police every Saturday.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail upon executing a bond of Rs.10,000 each with two sureties and appearing before police every Saturday at 10.30 am.

Rajkumar Vs The Inspector of Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.10769 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 15/07/2022 PRESENT

¶3

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN

¶4

CRL OP(MD). No.10769 of 2022

¶5

Rajkumar 2. Athisaya Sivasubirmanian, 3. Chandra 4. Sivakumar ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 4

¶6

Vs The State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thilagar Thidal, Madurai City. (Crime No.5 of 2022) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : MR.C.Suresh Kannan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶7

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

¶8

PRAYER :-For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.5 of 2022 on the file of the respondent Police.

¶9

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶10

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506(i) of IPC, in Crime No.05 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶11

2.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the first petitioner/first accused and the defacto complainant was solemnized on 23.11.2017, as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. Before and after marriage, the petitioners demanded more dowry from the defacto complainant and also harassed her. While, the first petitioner and the defacto complainant travelled from Chennai to Madurai, the first accused left the defacto complainant in the bus. Again, the accused persons demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- and got it from the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the defacto complainant filed Maintenance case and DVOP against the first petitioner. On 16.08.2021, the defacto complainant has made a complaint before the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Assistant Commissioner, Madurai as against the petitioners and

¶12

1/3

¶13

CRL OP(MD). No.10769 of 2022

¶14

during the course of enquiry, she received the articles and jewellery. Again, the petitioners threatened the defacto complainant to withdraw the complaint and criminally intimidated her. At the time of first complaint, the defacto complainant omitted to mention about the dowry of Rs.2,10,000/- and the present complaint has been registered for return of said amount.

¶15

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the defacto complainant sent a notice on 10.07.2021 to the first petitioner for the above said demand and also expressed her wish to get divorce.

¶16

Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police.

¶17

5.On perusal of records, it shows that there was a trouble over the non procreation of child. On the earlier occasion, this matter was referred to the mediation centre, wherein, the first petitioner appeared before the mediator and the defacto complainant appeared and expressed her willingness for divorce.

¶18

6.At this length of time, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions:-

¶19

7.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or their appearance, before the Mahila Court, Madurai, and on their executing a bond 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 learned Magistrate concerned; and the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police on every Saturday at 10.30 am until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

¶20

8.The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

¶21

The parties are directed to workout their remedy with regard to the return of article and other things in the pending proceedings.

¶22

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

2/3

¶25

CRL OP(MD). No.10769 of 2022

¶26

¶27

1 THE JUDGE, MAHILA COURT, MADURAI.

¶28

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶29

ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THILAGAR THIDAL, MADURAI CITY

¶30

3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶31

TTA

¶32

MK/VR/SAR.II/11.08.2022/2P/4C

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

3/3

Rajkumar v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Udhayakumar Vs The Inspector of Police

D.Sakthivel Vs The Inspector of Police

Manikandan Vs The Inspector of Police

Dharma Muneeswaran Vs The Inspector of Police

C. Vasantha Kumar, Vs the Inspector of Police

Thangavel Vs The Inspector of Police