Disposed

Thilak v. State Rep.by Its, the Inspector of Police

Madras HC16 Dec 2024CRL OP/31338/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband and mother-in-law sought anticipatory bail in a Section 498(A) IPC cruelty case arising from a matrimonial dispute over the husband's alleged extramarital relationship. No prior cases against them. Court granted anticipatory bail with conditions including bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties each and periodic reporting to police.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to both petitioners on bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties each, subject to stated conditions.

Thilak Vs State Rep.by Its, the Inspector of Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.12.2024

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶4

CRL OP NO. 31338 of 2024

1.Thilak 2.Malliga

...Petitioners

Versus

The State Rep by its The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station T.Nagar, Chennai District Crime No. 1 of 2024.

¶9

...Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Vijayakumar N.

¶11

For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Santhosh, Govt. Adv. [Crl. Side]

¶12

Public Prosecutor

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.1 of 2024

¶15

registered for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) IPC, the present petition has been filed seeking anticipatory bail.

¶16

2.The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner had married

¶17

Page No.1 of 5

¶18

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

¶19

the de-facto complainant on 02.02.2017. Now, the first petitioner had illegal relationship with another woman. When the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, the petitioners had used filthy language and harassed her. Hence the case.

¶20

Pleading innocence on the part of the petitioner, false implication in the case, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court. He further submits that the first petitioner is the husband of the de-facto complainant and the second petitioner is the mother of the first accused. He would submit that due to matrimonial dispute a false complaint has been given against the petitioners. He would submit that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this court.

¶21

The case of the prosecution, as put forth by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, opposing for grant of bail, is that the fi rst petitioner married the de-facto complainant on 02.02.2017. The first petitioner had developed an illegal relationship with another woman. When the same was questioned by the de-facto complainant, the petitioners had used filthy language and harassed her. Page No.2 of 5

¶22

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

¶23

He further submits that there are no previous cases against the petitioners.

¶24

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions and accordingly, they 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 of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, 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 said Magistrate, on further condition that:

¶25

[a] if the petitioner fails to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, this Order shall stand automatically cancelled;

¶26

[b] 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

¶27

Page No.3 of 5

¶28

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

¶29

pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶30

[c] the petitioners shall report before the respondent Police as and when required for interrogation.

¶31

[d] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶32

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

¶33

[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 petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court themselves as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

¶34

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

¶35

be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

¶36

16.12.2024

¶37

MSM

¶38

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

¶39

MSM

¶40

Page No.4 of 5

¶41

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

¶42

Crl.O.P.No.31338 of 2024

¶43

16.12.2024

¶44

Page No.5 of 5

¶45

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

Thilak v. State Rep.by Its, the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thilak v. State Rep.by Its, the Inspector of Police

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

Rajkumar Vs State Rep by Its

F.Raja Vs State Rep by

R.Sivasankari Vs the State Rep. by

Manikandan Vs the State Rep by, the Inspector of Police

Palanisamy Vs the State Rep by

P.Nirosha Vs State Rep. by the Inspector of Police