Martin Jerome v. The Inspector of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 27/02/2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Martin Jerome

... Petitioner/Accused

Vs

¶1The State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thallakulam, Madurai City, Crime No.07 of 2023. ... Respondent/Complainant

¶2Asiya Beevi ...Intervener/Defacto Complainant For Petitioner : M/s.Manimaran.K.R For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy,

Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr. T.Lenin Kumar PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :-

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.07 of 2023 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 417, 376, 506(i) IPC, in Crime No.7 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant is that she was in love with the accused Martin Jerome and during the relationship, he has taken 25 sovereigns of gold jewels and cash of Rs.1,70,000/- for the purchase of motor-cycle and further, the family members of the accused has also taken a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- from the defacto complainant. Further, the accused had sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant on giving a false promise that he will marry her. Later, he cheated her. Hence, the complaint.

3.Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the intervenor that the petitioner and the defacto complainant were in a consensual relationship with each other and there was some money dispute between them. Thereby, a complaint has been given against the petitioner. Now, parties have settled their issues among themselves and the petitioner has also repaid the amounts to the defacto complainant, which was taken by him and his family members.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the petitioner has cheated the defacto complainant on the promise to marry her and had sexual intercourse with her. He also cheated an amount to the tune of Rs.4,60,000/-. Based on the complaint, a case has been registered against the petitioner. Now, in this case, investigation is still pending. However, the parties have settled the issue among themselves.

5.Today, the defacto complainant also appeared before this Court along with her counsel. The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that both the petitioner and the defacto complainant have compromised the matter among themselves. Pursuant to which, the defacto complainant has received her amounts from the petitioner and she has no objection for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.In view of the above settlement, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madurai, 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 Judge 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 photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Judge 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 as and when required for interrogation; [c] the petitioner shall not tamper with the 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 Judge/ 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 Judge/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and; [f] if the accused/ petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC. sd/- 27/02/2023 / TRUE COPY / /03/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. PNM TO

¶1The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madurai.

¶2The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station,Thallakulam, Madurai City.

¶3The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to M/s.K.R.MANIMARAN, Advocate ( SR-2966[I] dated 28/02/2023 ) ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.2212 of 2023 Date : 27/02/2023 NA/SAR-3/13.03.2023/3P/5C