Disposed

Ranjith v. The State Rep by

Madras HC20 Aug 2024CRL OP/14766/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought by the first accused in a rape case arising from a promise to marry, pregnancy and miscarriage. The court noted the co-accused had been granted bail and the investigation was pending, and granted conditional anticipatory bail with daily reporting to police.

What did the court decide?

Conditional anticipatory bail: bond Rs.10,000 with two sureties, daily police reporting, no tampering or absconding; surrender within 15 days before Additional Mahalir Fast Track Court, Salem.

Ranjith Vs The State Rep by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.14766 of 2024

¶2

Crl.O.P.No.14766 of 2024

¶3

P.DHANABAL,J.

¶4

The petitioner/A1, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Section 376(1) of IPC r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act along with Section 417, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.52 of 2023 seeks anticipatory bail.

¶5

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein had tied thali to the defacto complainant and both were in physical intimacy with each other. Thereby, the defacto complainant was pregnant. When the same was informed to the petitioner's father/A2, she was ill treated and verbally abused. Hence, the case,

¶6

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. He also submits that the petitioner's father/A2 was

¶7

Page 1 of 5

¶8

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

¶9

Crl.O.P.No.14766 of 2024

¶10

enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 13.03.2024 in Crl.OP.No.2459 of 2024. He further submits that he is ready to abide by any stringent conditions imposed by this Court. Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶11

4.The learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor submits that the petitioner/A1 had already married and divorcee and the same has been suppressed from the defacto complainant. The petitioner had physical relationship with the petitioner by making false promise to marry her, following which she was pregnant. Later, he refused to marry her. Since the petitioner was not taken care of the defacto complainant, she suffered a huge blood loss and miscarriage at the 8^th month of her pregnancy. Hence, she vehemently opposed for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶12

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submits that the defacto complainant had physical relationship with the petitioner and thereby she was pregnant. This Court dismissed the petitioner's anticipatory bail application vide order dated 06.12.2023 in

¶13

Page 2 of 5

¶14

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

¶15

Crl.O.P.No.14766 of 2024

¶16

Crl.OP.No.24899 of 2023. Hence, he strongly opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for

¶18

the Intervenor and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record.

¶19

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, and considering the fact that the case is pending from 21.10.2023 and there is a progress to complete the investigation and the co-released was released on anticipatory bail and the dispute between the defacto complainant and A1 in respect of marriage and also considering the other aspects, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶20

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the

¶21

event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Additional

¶22

Page 3 of 5

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.14766 of 2024

¶25

Mahalir Fast Track Court, Salem , on condition that the petitioner 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 learned Magistrate

¶26

concerned and on further condition that:

¶27

[a] the petitioner shall report before respondent police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

¶28

[b] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶29

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶30

[d] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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].

¶31

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

20.08.2024

Page 4 of 5

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

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.14766 of 2024

¶37

P.DHANABAL, J.

¶38

¶39

Crl.O.P.No.14766 of 2024

¶40

20.08.2024

¶41

Page 5 of 5

¶42

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

Ranjith v. The State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjith v. The 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

S.Nandhakumar Vs State Rep by

Karthick Balu Vs the State Rep by

Ravi Vs State Represented by

Murali Vs State Rep by

Vignesh Kumar Vs the State Rep.by

M.Sundaresan Vs State Rep by