Sivasangaramoorthy v. The Inspector of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 12/12/2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.SIVAGNANAM

¶1Sivasangaramoorthy,

¶2Kanimozhi, ... Petitioners/Accused No.2&3

Vs The Inspector of Police, Dhadikombu Police Station, Dindigul District. Crime No.350/2023. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : M/s.SARVAGAN PRABHU.S, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.RMS.SETHURAMAN, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.350/2023 on the fle of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the ofences punishable under Sections 448(A), 244(b), 323 and 500(1) of IPC in Crime No.350 of 2023, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners herein are the in-laws of the defacto complainant. On 05.00.2023, at about 03.30 p.m, the defacto complainant found a marriage photo of her husband/A1 along with another woman. When the same was questioned by the defacto complainant and her mother, they were atacked by A1 and threatened with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not commited a ny o fence a s alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that due to matrimonial dispute, A1 and the defacto complainant living separately from the year 2014. The defacto complainant fled maintenance petition in M.C.No.308 of 2020 before the Family Court, Chennai and fled D.V.No.85 of 2021 before the 1 st Additional Mahila Court, Egmore against her husband. In such circumstances, the petitioner, who are the in-laws of the defacto complainant were falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that it is a family dispute between the parties and no previous case is pending against the petitioners.

5.Considering the nature of allegations levelled as against the petitioners and taking into consideration the principles stated by the Honourable Supreme Court in Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Etc., vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 AIR 1632 and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Utar Pradesh and others reported in (2009)4 SCC 437 and Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1994)4 SCC 260 and taking into consideration the origin of crime, it is seen that the ofence alleged as against the petitioners is not a case of heinous crime. Further the petitioners are having permanent residence at Dindigul District. Hence the principles stated in Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs. Home Secretary, State Of Bihar reported in AIR 1979 SC 1360 is taken into consideration. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned that pre-trial detention is not be encouraged nor is to be encourageable pre-trial release on sureties; that if the Court is satisfed after taking into consideration that the accused has his roots in the community and is not likely to abscond, he can safely be released on his personal bond.

0.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of ffteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before (*)the Additional Mahila Court, Dindigul District on condition that the petitioners shall execute a own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police ofcer 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 petitioners shall afx his photograph 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 petitioners shall report before the trial Court on summons. [c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [d] the petitioners 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 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 5500]. [f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 224A IPC.

sd/-

12/12/2023 (*)CORRECTED AS PER ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED 20.12.2023 IN CRL OP(MD) NO.22284 OF 2023

/ TRUE COPY /

/12/2023

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. )

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai - 025 023. DSS TO TO BE SUBSTITUTED WITH THE ORDER DATED 12/12/2023 ALREADY DESPATCHED 1 THE ADDITIONAL MAHILA JUDGE AT MAGISTERIAL LEVEL, KARUR

2.THE JUDGE ADDITIONAL MAHILA COURT, DINDIGUL DISTRICT 3 DO THOUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,KARUR DISTRICT. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DHADIKOMBU POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 5 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1 CC to M/s.S.SARVAGAN PRABHU, Advocate SR-18072 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.22284 of 2023 Date :12/12/2023 SA/DD/SAR. /15.12.2023/0P/0C RK/ VR/27.12.2023 /0P/7C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certifed copies in this format from 17/07/2023.