Allowed

Ramachandran v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC7 Nov 2023CRL OP/23975/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge dismissed an anticipatory bail petition for three petitioners accused of criminal offences involving a child's home, holding they had no right to enter or take documents. Bail was granted to three other petitioners (grandmother and maternal relatives) subject to strict reporting conditions and a monetary bond.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to the 4th, 5th, and 6th petitioners with conditions to report to police and execute a bond of Rs.10,000/-.

Ramachandran Vs the Inspector of Police — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.23975 of 2023

¶2

Crl.O.P.No.23975 of 2023

¶3

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶4

The petitioners herein seek anticipatory bail in Crime No.343 of 2023 registered by the respondent Police for the offences under Sections 451 and 380 IPC.

¶5

The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners

¶6

are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Thus, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶7

It is stated by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that

¶8

the defacto complainant is one Sangeetha. Her husband, one Krishnakumar had unfortunately died. He was an employee in a bank. It is the specific case that out of defacto complainant's earning, a property was purchased and used for construction and the defacto complainant is living there with her two children. After the death of her husband, the 1^st , 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners who are the brothers of the said husband and 4^th petitioner who is the mother and

¶9

5^th and 6^th petitioners who are the wives of the 3^rd and 2^nd petitioners respectively are said to have entered into that particular house where the

¶10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/5

¶11

Crl.O.P.No.23975 of 2023

¶12

defacto complainant was residing and scolded and assaulted her. They had taken away the documents, cheques and more importantly the documents relating to her children.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the particular house is under mortgage and also stated that the 4^th petitioner herein who is the grand mother of the two children had settled a substantial amount running to about Rs.1/-crore. It was also contented that the main grievance of the petitioners is that the defacto complainant is living with someone else and on that ground, her own brother had given a complaint against her.

¶14

Be that as it may, the petitioners have no right to enter into the house and take away the documents of the children and also the cheques of the defacto complainant. These are negotiable instruments of the defacto complainant.

¶15

Taking all the factors into consideration, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 1^st , 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed insofar as 1^st , 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners are concerned. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/5

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.23975 of 2023

¶17

I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 4^th , 5^th and 6^th petitioners with certain conditions.

¶18

Accordingly, the 4^th , 5^th and 6^th petitioners are ordered to be

¶19

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 Judicial Magistrate-I, Kallakurichi, on condition that the 4^th , 5^th and 6^th petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees

¶20

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:

¶21

[a] the 4^th , 5^th and 6^th 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.

¶22

[b] (i) the 4^th petitioner shall report before the respondent police once a week at 10.00.a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

¶23

3/5

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/5

¶25

Crl.O.P.No.23975 of 2023

¶26

(ii) the 5^th and 6^th petitioners shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.00.a.m., until further orders.

¶27

[c] the 4^th , 5^th and 6^th petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶28

[d] the 4^th , 5^th and 6^th 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 4^th , 5^th and 6^th petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the 4^th , 5^th and 6^th 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

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

¶31

07.11.2023

¶32

¶33

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/5

¶35

4/5

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.23975 of 2023

¶37

¶38

Crl.O.P.No.23975 of 2023

¶39

07.11.2023

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/5

Ramachandran v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramachandran 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

Devaki Subramanian Vs State Rep. by

Chandran Vs State by

Taj Nisha Vs the State Rep by

Kavitha Vs the State of Tamilnadu through the

Raja Vs State Rep by

Krishnamoorthy Vs State Rep by