Srigopi v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
The single judge granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner facing charges under Sections 498A, 406, 323 IPC for alleged dowry harassment and assault by his wife. The court imposed strict conditions, including police report, no tampering, and arrest if he absconds.
What did the court decide?
Petitioner granted anticipatory bail to appear within 15 days on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of reporting and non-absconding.
What the court decided
Crl.O.P.No.1560 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.1649 of 2023
Crl.O.P.No.1560 of 2023
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the
respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 323 and 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.05 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.
- The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and and the defacto complainant got married on 10.09.2021 and the said marriage was arranged by the elders of both their families and both of them are divorcees. After the marriage, the petitioner herein used to harass the defacto complainant by attacking her with hands. That apart, the petitioner used to demand dowry and sexually assaulted her. The further allegation is that the petitioner has not yet completed the legal procedures to get divorce from the first marriage and that the accused have taken the jewels of the defacto complainant and refused to return the same. Hence, this case.
Page 1 of 8
Crl.O.P.No.1560 of 2023
- The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an Auditor by profession and this is second marriage for both the petitioner and the defacto complainant. Right from the date of marriage, there was no cordial relationship between the parties and there used to be frequent quarrels between them. Subsequently, due to misunderstanding they got separated. He further submitted that the defacto complainant being an Advocate, has given a false exaggerated complaint by making weird and false allegations against the petitioners and his own sister. He also submitted that earlier the defacto complainant had given a similar complaint against her first husband and the matter was referred to mediation and during such time, the defacto complainant received an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from her earlier husband. He reiterated that even against her earlier husband, the defacto complainant had given an exaggerated complainant. He further submitted that earlier the matter was referred to Dowry Prohibition Officer and the Dowry Prohibition Officer, after conducting due enquiry, has held that there was no demand of dowry and also referred the matter to the police, whereas
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the FIR under Sections 498A IPC.
Whether conditions can be imposed to ensure the petitioner does not tamper with evidence or abscond.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
A. D. Jagadish Chandira
- respondent
State of Tamil Nadu
Coram
A.D. Jagadish Chandira
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court