Allowed

Renuka v. State Rep by

Madras HC10 Nov 2023CRL OP/25882/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners facing charges under IPC Sections 294(b), 323, 506(ii) and the Women Harassment Act. The order mandated release with conditions, including execution of a bond with sureties, regular police appearance for interrogation, and prohibitions on tampering with evidence or absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on anticipatory bail subject to execution of separate bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties and compliance with strict appearance and conduct conditions.

Renuka Vs State Rep by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.25882 of 2023

¶2

Crl.O.P.No.25882 of 2023 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶3

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of Women Harassment Act in Crime No. 215 of 2023, seek anticipatory bail.

¶4

2 . It is stated that owing to civil dispute, there was a wordy quarrel which leading to the lodging of a complaint and registration of the First Information Report.

¶5

3. In view of these facts, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶6

4. 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 District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Madathukkulam, Tiruppur District, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of this Court concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

¶7

[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.

¶8

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

¶9

Crl.O.P.No.25882 of 2023

¶10

Vsg

¶11

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶12

[b] the first petitioner shall appear before the respondent police once in a week ie., on every Monday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required and the second petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

[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].

¶16

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

¶17

10.11.2023

¶18

vsg

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.25882 of 2023

¶20

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

Renuka v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renuka v. State Rep by

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 Manoharan Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Ramamoorthy Vs State Rep by

Vasanth @ Vasanthakumar Vs State Rep.by

Natarajan Vs Inspector of Police

Kanagaraj Vs State, Rep. by

M.Janarthanam Vs Inspector of Police