Sivakumar v. The State Rep By Its,
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 26.02.2023 for the alleged offence under Section 174(3) of Cr.P.C. altered to Sec. 306 of I.P.C. in Crime No.63 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.02.2024 the defacto complainant lodged a complaint stating that his sister got married with A1 on 03.09.2023 and they are living in Bangalore due to their jobs. However, A1 said to have refused to maintain a peaceful matrimonial life with deceased citing his preference for same-sex relationship and also said to have showed videos to substantiate his claim. Subsequently, when she had informed her in laws about the same, they alleged to have demanded dowry from her, thereby she was driven out from the matrimonial home, due to which she attempted to commit suicide by consuming poison. Accordingly, he had lodged a complaint against the petitioners.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they are inlaws of Diya Gayathri and they were falsely implicated in this case. In fact, they are residing at Coimbatore, on the other hand, their daughter-in-law and their son are residing at Bangalore as if they were employed there. He would submit that they are no way connected with their family affairs and they have not caused any interference to them and also they have not demanded any dowry. He would submit that they have been falsely implicated in this case as if they are also reason for the suicide commited by daughter-in-law family. He would submit that there is no specific overtact against these petitioners and they are innocent persons and they have not at all committed any offence as alleged by the respondent police. He would submit that there is no role of the petitioners in the alleged offence and the investigation is almost completed and that the petitioners have been suffering incarceration from 26.02.2023 for more than 1 year 1 month. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that after the marriage was performed, in the month of December 2023, within a short period, her inlaws demanded dowry and their son A1 also not inclined to live with the deceased and he was interested in same sex life. Out of which, not only daughter-in-law and her father and mother also committed suicide and their suicidal note was also recovered. He would submit that now the enquiry is pending and investigation is not yet completed. He would also submit that if they are released on bail, they may abscond and they would tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation and the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is yet to be filed. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both counsel and on perusal of suicidal notes wrote by the deceased, it reveals that in view of dowry demand, not only petitioners' daughter-in-law, their father and mother also committed suicide
and on seeing gravity of offence committed by the petitioners and also the fact that now the enquiry is pending and the investigation is not yet completed, at this stage, if they are released on bail, they may abscond and there is possibility of tampering the witnesses and hampering the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 03.04.2024 rpp
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rpp 03.04.2024