Petitioner apprehending arrest in a 2012 house-theft and stolen-property case sought anticipatory bail. Noting she was the wife of A3, who had already obtained bail, the court granted anticipatory bail on conditions including a bond with two sureties and weekly police reporting.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.No.3035 of 2024
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
The petitioner/A4, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 454, 380 and 411 of IPC in Crime No.361 of 2012 on the file of the respondent, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.It is stated that the husband of the petitioner is working as
pawn broker. He had been arrayed as A3. He had obtained bail in Crl.M.P.No.35123 of 2023 by an order dated 09.08.2023 from the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore.
3.It is the case of the prosecution that the First Information
Report which had been registered in the year 2012 was still kept pending for investigation and when A1 and A2 were arrested the fingerprints matched with the offences in the present First Information Report.
1/4
Thereafter, A3 and A4 has been arrayed as accused.
4.Taking all the factors into consideration, particularly since this petitioner is the wife of A3 and either directly or indirectly connected with the business, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail
in the 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 Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore, 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 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:
[a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their
2/4
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.
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police weekly once i.e., on every Monday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.
[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[e] 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].
[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
16.02.2024
smv
3/4
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J. smv
Crl.O.P.No.3035 of 2024
16.02.2024
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner apprehending arrest in a 2012 FIR under Sections 454, 380 and 411 IPC?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P.K.Shaji vs. State of KeralaRelied on
(2005)AIR SCW 5560 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
C.V. Karthikeyan (petitioner/A4)
State represented by respondent police
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Parties & counsel
