Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a matrimonial cruelty case involving allegations of assault and taking away jewels. The court granted anticipatory bail with conditions including daily police appearance for three weeks and payment of Rs.20,000 per month as interim maintenance to the defacto complainant.
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.391 of 2024
Crl.O.P.No.391 of 2024 And Crl.M.P.No. 954 of 2024
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
The impleading Petition Crl.M.P.No. 954 of 2024 is allowed. The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No. 5 of 2023, seek anticipatory bail.
2 . It is stated that the defacto complainant had married the first accused and at that time, her parents gave 50 sovereings of gold and household items. They conducted reception at a cost of Rs.10/- lakhs. It is stated that thereafter, the first accused had often quarrelled with the defacto complainant which made her to leave the matrimonial house and go over to her mother's house. Thereafter, it is stated that the first accused had an affair with yet another lady and when this was pointed out, the first and fourth accused had attacked the defacto complainant and threatened her and took away all the jewels.
Crl.O.P.No.391 of 2024
“The first petitioner to first disclose the name and present address of the lady with whom he said to have married first, prior to the marriage with the defacto complainant.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that there was no marriage but only an engagement ceremony.
3. To verify that aspect by the Investigating Agency that the name and address first disclose to this Court. For disclosing the name and present address, list the matter on 02.02.204.”
5. The matter had been again listed today and the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the details has been disclosed to the respondent.
“In this regard i enquired the defacto complainant Tmt.Nivedhitha as she is having any evidence to trace out about the first marriage of the A1 accused. But the defacto complainant did not have any details. Enquired A1 accused
Crl.O.P.No.391 of 2024
Thiruthala Raghu he produced the wed lock cancellation with one Vennila. He also said only Bedrothal was conducted with Vennila and wedding was cancelled due to family issues.
I also called Dharshini for enquiry she sent an email stating that the A1 accused Thiruthala Raghu is only an offence collegue and she left away from the office of the harrasment of Nivedhitha. She also stated that now she is living in Erode with her husband and in-laws leading a peaceful life.”
Crl.O.P.No.391 of 2024
10 . Accordingly, the petitioners 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 on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Additional Mahila Court, Alandur, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten thousand only) each 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 this Court concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:
[a] 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 pass Book to ensure their identity.
[b] the first petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders and the second petitioner shall appear before the respondent police once in a week ie., every Monday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and the petitioners 3 & 4 shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.
[c] Additionally, the first petitioner shall pay maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to the defacto complainant by depositing the same on or before 10th day of every succeeding month of English calendar in Crime No. 5 of 2023 and on such deposit, the learned Additional Mahila Court, Alandur, amy handed it over to the defacto complainant on proper
Crl.O.P.No.391 of 2024
identification.
[d] It is made clear that this is only an interim arrangement made by this Court and if ever the issue of maintenance comes up for consideration, the amounts paid by the first petitioner/first accused under these directions should always be adjusted with any other payment directed by any competent Court of law. It is also made clear that by this payment, the petitionier cannot be taken to have admitted to any of the allegations raised.
[e] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[f] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[g] 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].
[h] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be
registered under Section 229A IPC.
02.02.2024
vsg
Crl.O.P.No.391 of 2024
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Vsg
Crl.O.P.No.391 of 2024 And Crl.M.P.No. 954 of 2024
02.02.2024
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners apprehending arrest under Sections 498A, 323 and 506(ii) IPC should be granted anticipatory bail.
What conditions, including interim maintenance by the first petitioner, should govern the grant of anticipatory bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P.K.Shaji vs. State of KeralaRelied on
(2005)AIR SCW 5560 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Thiruthala Raghu
Nivedhitha
C.V.Karthikeyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
