Renuka v. State Rep.By

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J., The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 174(3) of Cr.P.C and subsequently, altered into Section 306 of IPC, in Crime No.96 of 2024, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 22.12.2023, the defacto complainant and his family members went to a devotional tour along with the deceased Tamilselvi, who is the daughter of the defacto complainant and one Balamurugan(A1), who is the husband of the deceased Tamlilselvi. During the tour, the son-in-law of the defacto complainant/A1 was in shortage of money and hence, the defacto complainant gave him a sum of Rs.10,000/-. On coming to know about the same, the petitioner who is the mother of A1, scolded A1 for received money from his father-in-law. Hence, on 06.03.2024, even though the defacto complainant refused, A1 returned a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the defacto complainant. On 07.03.2024, again the petitioner has scolded A1 about the borrowal of money from the defacto complainant. Hence, on frustration, the deceased committed suicide by 1/4

hanging herself. Immediately, she was taken to the CMC Hospital, Vellore wherein, the doctor examined and declared that she was brought dead. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The petitioner is an innocent person and she is no way connected with the death of the deceased. The petitioner understands that the R.D.O. enquiry was conducted and the report says that there was no dowry harassment made over the deceased and due to frustration only, the deceased committed suicide. He also submits that this is the second application for anticipatory bail and the earlier application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 29.04.2024. Hence, prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submits RDO enquiry was conducted and it was observed that due to the harassment made by this petitioner along with her sister, the deceased committed suicide. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

2/4

5. Taking into consideration of the fact that the deceased was four months pregnant at the time of death and the RDO enquiry report states that due to the harassment made by this petitioner who is the mother-in-law of the deceased, along with her sister, the deceased committed suicide, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 11.06.2024 ssi 3/4

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J., ssi 11.06.2024 4/4