Allowed

Sugarno v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC23 Sept 2024CRL OP/11132/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners facing charges under sections 498-A and 406 IPC for alleged dowry harassment and criminal breach of trust. Bail was granted with standard conditions including cooperation with investigation and no tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with conditions to execute bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and cooperate with investigation.

Sugarno Vs the State Rep by Its — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.11132 of 2024

¶2

Crl.O.P.No.11132 of 2024

¶3

P.DHANABAL, J.

¶4

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Section 498(A) and 406 of IPC in Crime No.04 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶5

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are in laws of the defacto complainant and the petitioner's son loved by the defacto complainant and the parents arranged the marriage in the year 2015. Further, the parents of the defacto complainant gave 120 sovereign gold jewels along with other articles and the petitioner's son had illegal contact with other girl, due to which some wordy quarrel happened between the petitioners, defacto complainant and his family. Later the petitioner family members demanded 5 lakhs and they sent out the defacto complainant from the petitioner's house. Hence, the complaint.

¶6

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are an innocent person and they have not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. However, on instructions, the learned counsel https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/5

¶7

Crl.O.P.No.11132 of 2024

¶8

further submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. He further submits that already this Court granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners and thereafter matter was referred to the Mediation Center to settle the matter and some of the amounts were also paid to the defacto complainant.

¶9

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that petitioners are in laws of the defacto complainant and the petitioner's son loved by the defacto complainant and the parents arranged the marriage in the year 2015. Further, the parents of the defacto complainant gave 120 sovereign gold jewels along with other articles and the petitioner's son had illegal contact with other girl, due to which some wordy quarrel happened between the petitioners, defacto complainant and his family. Later the petitioner family members demanded 5 lakhs and they threw out the defacto complainant from the petitioner's house. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶10

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

¶11

2/5

¶12

Crl.O.P.No.11132 of 2024

¶13

Considering the representations made by both sides and

¶14

considering the nature of offences charged against the petitioners,

¶15

relationship between the parties and no previous case is pending against the petitioners and also considering the fact that this Court granted interim Anticipatory Bail to the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶16

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his/her appearance, within a period of fifteen

¶17

(15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the Additional Mahila Court, Egmore on condition that the petitioners shall execute a 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 and on further condition that:

¶18

[a] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

¶19

[b] the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such

¶20

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

¶21

3/5

¶22

Crl.O.P.No.11132 of 2024

¶23

facts of the Court or to any police officer.

¶24

[c] the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶25

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

¶26

[e] the petitioners shall make himself/herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶27

[f] 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].

¶28

[g] If the petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

¶29

23.09.2024

¶30

nsl

¶31

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

¶32

4/5

¶33

Crl.O.P.No.11132 of 2024

¶34

P.DHANABAL, J.

¶35

nsl

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.11132 of 2024

¶37

23.09.2024

¶38

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

¶39

5/5

Sugarno v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sugarno v. the State Rep by Its

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

Arumugasamy and Others Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by the Inspector of Police

Ramayee Vs State Rep by

Dani @ Anthony Vs the State Rep by

Imran Fazil Vs the State Rep by Its

Sathish Kumar Vs The State Rep by

K.Anandakumar Vs The State Rep by