Allowed

Karthikeyan v. State Rep

Madras HC3 Sept 2024CRL OP/12116/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the petitioner accused in a case involving rape and dowry demands, noting the parties were adults, had a consensual relationship, and the petitioner had since married the complainant. The court imposed conditions to ensure the petitioner's presence for interrogation and to prevent interference with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on executing bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions to report to police for interrogation and not to abscond or tamper with evidence.

Karthikeyan Vs State Rep — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.12116 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.12116 of 2024

¶7

Karthikeyan

¶8

...Petitioner/Accused

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State rep by its The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Cuddalore.

¶11

(Crime No.15 of 2024) ...Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.15 of 2024 on the file of respondent police.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vijaya Ragavan

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinothkumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶15

¶16

1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.12116 of 2024

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.04.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 376, 417, 506(ii) of IPC r/w Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.15 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶20

2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused, on the false promise of marrying the defacto complainant, induced her and had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions and thereafter, refused to marry the defacto complainant. When the defacto complainant asked the petitioner about the same, the petitioner, along with the other accused, abused her in filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences and demanded a huge dowry to marry her. Hence, the case.

¶21

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner, aged about 19 years and the

¶22

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.12116 of 2024

¶24

defacto complainant, aged 19 years are adults and there was a consensual relationship between them and later, a false complaint has been given against the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner is in custody from 04.04.2024 and he is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶25

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent would submit that the petitioner induced the defacto complainant, promising that he will marry her and had a physical relationship with her on several occasions and thereafter, refused to marry her and demanded huge dowry to marry her. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶26

5.I have heard the representation made by the learned counsel on both side.

¶27

Considering the representation made by both side learned counsels and the nature of offences and also considering the fact that the petitioner has married the defacto complainant and also considering the

¶28

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.12116 of 2024

¶30

period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner and also considering that there is no previous case as against the petitioner and all other aspects, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions:

¶31

[a] Accordingly, the Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to 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

¶32

the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Cuddalore, and on further conditions that;

¶33

[b] the Petitioner shall report before the respondent police only as and when required for interrogation.

¶34

[c] the Petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he is suspected;

¶35

[d] the Petitioner 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 facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶36

[e] the Petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶37

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

Crl.O.P.No.12116 of 2024

¶39

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned

¶40

Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the Petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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]; and

¶41

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered

¶42

under Section 269 B.N.S.

03.09.2024

ata

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Cuddalore.

¶47

2.Sub Jail, Cuddalore.

¶48

3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Cuddalore.

¶49

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶50

5/6

¶51

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

¶52

Crl.O.P.No.12116 of 2024

¶53

P.DHANABAL, J . ata

¶54

Crl.O.P.No.12116 of 2024

¶55

03.09.2024

¶56

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Karthikeyan v. State Rep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthikeyan v. State Rep

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

Balaji Vs State Rep by

Narasimman Vs the State Represented by

Surya Vs the State Rep by

S Praveen Vs State by

The State Rep. by Vs Tr.S.Ravi Rathinam

Gowtham Vs State Rep by