Ranjani @ Sivaranjani v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.04.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Ranjani @ Sivaranjani ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Thiruvenkadu Police Station, Mayiladuthurai District.

(Crime No.70 of 2023).

... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail, in connection with the Crime No.70 of 2023, pending investigation on the file of the respondent Police.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.T.Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/7

O R D E R

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.04.2023, for the offences punishable under Section 306 of IPC, in Crime No.70 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the de-facto complainant/Murugavel is that his daughter/victim had a love affair with A1 and there was dispute between them. Further, the first accused along with his family members have abused and humiliated the victim, due to which, the victim unable bear the humiliation caused by the accused, has committed suicide by hanging. Hence the case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who is arrayed as A4, is an innocent person and she has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is the sister-in-law of A1 and A1 had a love affair with the victim/deceased and even prior to the marriage, the victim has got pregnant and on coming to know of the same, the parents of the victim had reprimanded her, due to which, she had committed suicide, whereas, the de-facto complainant has 2/7

given a false complaint as against the petitioner and her family members, stating that they had abetted the victim to commit suicide. He also submitted that the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offence and she has been unnecessarily roped into this case. He also submitted that the petitioner is having a six months old child and she is in custody from 09.04.2023 along with her child. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for respondent submitted that the petitioner is the sister-in-law of the first accused and she along with others have abused and humiliated the de-facto complainant's daughter, since she got pregnant before marriage, due to which, the victim has committed suicide by hanging. He also submitted that the deceased has also left behind a suicide note. He further submitted that investigation in this case is still pending. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record.

3/7

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her executing 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 learned Judicial Magistrate, Sirkazhi, and on further conditions that: [a] 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 petitioner shall stay at Kumbakonam and report before the Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam East Police Station, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not enter into the jurisdictional limits of the respondent police, until further orders;

4/7

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness 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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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 abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

28.04.2023 ham 5/7

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Sirkazhi.

2. The Inspector of Police, Thiruvenkadu Police Station, Mayiladuthurai District.

3. The Central Prison, Trichy.

4. The Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam East Police Station, Kumbakonam District.

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

6/7

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.,J.

ham 28.04.2023 7/7