Allowed

Santhi v. Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station

Madras HC7 Jun 2023CRL OP/3573/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners charged with IPC offences under a matrimonial dispute. Bail was subject to reporting to police, executing a bond with sureties, and maintaining conduct regarding evidence and witnesses, with penalties for breach.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered released on bail with conditions to report to police daily for two weeks, execute a bond with sureties, and refrain from tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Santhi Vs Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station — Caste Atrocities | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.3573 of 2023

¶2

Crl.O.P.No.3573 of 2023

¶3

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

¶4

The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 498(A), 506(ii) IPC in Crime No.10 of 2022, seek anticipatory bail.

¶5

2.The case of the prosecution is that A1/husband of the defacto

¶6

complainant was having illegal affair with another girl and when the defacto complainant questioned about the same, A1 along with the petitioners, threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences and also assaulted her. Hence, the complaint.

¶7

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are relatives of A1/husband of the defacto complainant and due to matrimonial dispute, the defacto complainant deserted A1 and her children and had gone away, whereas she has given a false complaint against the petitioners and A1 as if, they threatened and assaulted her. He would further submit that the children of the defacto complainant are

¶8

Page 1 of 5

¶9

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

¶10

Crl.O.P.No.3573 of 2023

¶11

now with the custody of A1 and the petitioners. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶12

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for

¶13

the respondent opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners stating that the petitioners are the relatives of A1/husband of the defacto complainant. A1 was having illegal affair with some other girl and when the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, the petitioners along with A1, threatened and assaulted the defacto complainant.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and perused the materials available on record including the FIR.

¶15

There is no representation for the Intervenor/defacto

¶16

complainant.

¶17

Page 2 of 5

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.3573 of 2023

¶20

7.Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case and

¶21

the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶22

8.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 Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila (FTC), Vellore, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees 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:

¶23

[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.

¶24

Page 3 of 5

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.3573 of 2023

¶27

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter, every Saturday at 10.30

¶28

a.m. until further orders.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

[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].

¶32

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

07.06.2023

ksa-2

Page 4 of 5

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

¶37

Crl.O.P.No.3573 of 2023

¶38

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.,

¶39

ksa-2

¶40

Crl.O.P.No.3573 of 2023

¶41

07.06.2023

¶42

Page 5 of 5

¶43

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

Santhi v. Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhi v. Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station

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

Juzar Saifuddin @ Joozar Saibutheen and 3 Others Vs Inspector of Police

H.Lurdu Mari Vs the Inspector of Police

Ashok Kumar Vs State Rep by Its

Thirumalai @ Balan Vs State Rep by

P.Murugesan Vs State Rep by

State Rep by Vs G.Janakiraman