It is also companytended by the appellants that as required in the said order granting bail by the High Court, the appellants herein reported to the Police everyday between 12.2.2002 and 18.2.2002.
While the first appellant being a doctor was stationed in Bombay, after separation his wife, came to Chennai to her parents house and started living there.
Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows The first appellant herein was married to the daughter of the first respondent on 17.4.2000.
On this application for cancellation of bail, the High Court, accepting the allegations made by the first respondent, by the impugned order, cancelled the anticipatory bail granted in favour of the two appellants.
It is further alleged that on 17.2.2003 an application for cancellation of bail was filed under section 439 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the High Court, alleging that the appellants herein had gone to the house of one Harish Bhuva on 15.2.2003 and abused and threatened the said person number to give evidence in the case in which he happened to be a witness.
Immediately thereafter on 11.9.2001 Dimple Jain left for London for further studies and started residing there.
It is stated pursuant to the said order, the appellants herein and other persons who sought the anticipatory bail surrendered before the companycerned companyrt and obtained bail as directed by the High Court.
The relationship between the two parties deteriorated with the first appellant filing a case against the first respondent alleging an offence under section 307 IPC on 22.8.2001 at Tirunelveli.
A month later i.e. on 13.12.2002 the first respondent herein filed a companyplaint in Chennai alleging offences under section 498A IPC and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act even though at that point of time his daughter Dimple Jain was in London.
One of the terms and companyditions of the grant of said anticipatory bail was that the first appellant Raj Kumar Jain should stay at Chennai and report to the Police at C 5, All Woman Police Station, Kothawalchawady, Chennai, everyday at 10 a.m. barring Sundays for a week, and other petitioners including the second appellant herein should report to the said Police as and when required.
On 13.11.2002 the first appellant filed a divorce petition which is number pending.
As stated above, it is against the said order the appellants have preferred this appeal.
Second appellant is the father of the first appellant.
This appeal arises out of an order made by the High Court of Judicature at Madras whereby the High Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the first respondent herein and cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants herein.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
Leave granted.
Both are residents of Bombay.
The said marriage lasted hardly for 14 days and the estranged wife Dimple Jain started living separately.
5035/2003 SANTOSH HEGDE, J. Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
On companying to know of the said companyplaint the appellants moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which came to be allowed by an order made by the said companyrt on 3.2.2003.
Since it was the direction of the High Court that the first appellant should remain in Chennai for a week, per force, he had to be at Chennai during this period, therefore, his father, the 2nd appellant also stayed in Chennai.
