Jayaraman v. The State Rep By Its,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Sixth day of May Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.12391 of 2022 1 JAYARAMAN [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 V.J.LAKSHMI AMMAL 3 D.KOKILA Vs THE STATE REP BY ITS, [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (LAW AND ORDER) R-8, VADAPALANI POLICE STATION, VADAPALANI, CHENNAI-600 026.

CRIME NO.125 OF 2022.

For Petitioner : M/S.G.PRABHAKARAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S.C.E.PRATAP, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Section 174 Cr.P.C., @ 306 of IPC in Crime No.125 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that one Saranya who is the daughter of the defacto complainant committed suicide. Initially the case was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Later, on enquiry, it was found that the petitioners abetted the said Saranya to commit suicide. Hence, the case was altered into Section 306 IPC. 3.

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the first petitioner is the father-in-law, second petitioner is the mother-in-law and the third petitioner is the sister-in-law of the of the deceased Saranya.

married the first accused viz., Narendran, who is the son of the first and second petitioners and the brother of the third petitioner on 24.10.2021. After the second marriage, the deceased was living happily and 15 days prior to the occurrence, she had gone to her parents house and was living with them and that the petitioners are no way connected with the suicide committed by the deceased. Hence he would pray for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.

Side) would submit that 15 days prior to the occurrence, the deceased along with A1 and his family members had gone to Kerela for a tour, wherein, A2/Dinesh, who is the brother-in-law of A1, had passed some comments about the deceased Saranya with regard to bearing of child and her earlier marriage in public and the same was informed to A1 by the deceased, which was objected by his sister (A5) and brother-in-law (A2). Thereby, a wordy quarrel took place between them and thereafter, the deceased Saranya went to her parents house. Thereafter, the defacto complainant and well wishers made attempts to resolve the dispute, but the same ended in failure. While so, on 03.05.2022, the said Saranya at her parental home committed suicide.

Initially a case was registered under Section 174(3) of IPC and later, it has been altered into one under Section 306 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, A1 and A2 have been arrested and remanded to Judicial Custody. He further submitted that the deceased has been commented by the accused in public and thereby, she got ashamed which lead her to take such an extreme step of suicide. There is no other reason for the extreme step taken by the deceased Saranya except the reason stated above. Further, he would submit that the investigation is at the initial stage and hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submissions made by the learned counsel, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, on condition that each 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 Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

[a] the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs 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 respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

[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 5560]. [f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

-sd/- 26/05/2022 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO 1 THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NO.XVII, SAIDAPET, CHENNAI.

2 THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, EGMORE, CHENNAI. [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (LAW AND ORDER) R-8, VADAPALANI POLICE STATION, VADAPALANI, CHENNAI - 600 026.

+1 CC to M/S.G.PRABHAKARAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.7988 CRL OP.12391/2022 Date :26/05/2022 TA-01/06/2022