Spouses sought anticipatory bail for house trespass, abusive language, assault and threats arising from an alleged affair and a debt dispute. Weighing the threat made about the complainant's daughter, the court declined bail and dismissed the petition.
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.OP.No.801 of 2024
Crl.O.P.No.801 of 2024
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
The petitioners/A1 and A2 in Crime No.731 of 2023 registered by
the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 442, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) of IPC r/w Section 4 of Woman Harassment Act seek anticipatory bail .
3.Taking all factors into consideration and the undue and unnecessary threat given about the daughter, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
12.02.2024
Vv
1/2
Crl.OP.No.801 of 2024
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
Vv
Crl.O.P.No.801 of 2024
12.02.2024
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners for offences under Sections 442, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 4 of Woman Harassment Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioners (A1 and A2 in Crime No.731 of 2023)
Respondent police (Crime No.731 of 2023)
C.V.Karthikeyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
